University Break-Ins - Linked to Attempt to Discredit Climate Science?
A series of alleged break-ins at University of Victoria in British Columbia is evidence of a larger effort to discredit research on climate change, says renowned researcher Andrew Weaver, a contributor to the IPCC.
Weaver said that his campus office has been broken into twice in the past year and said that a broken computer was stolen and his papers were rummaged through. There have been attempts to hack into other scientists computers.
In some of these attempts, people have impersonated network technicians and tried to get into campus offices or access data. Weaver believes the timing is linked to the upcoming Copenhagen climate change summit.
i love to see if anything they ever find discredits global warming... which i expect will be impossible... though i´m SURE they will find instances numbers being changed as climate models update to newer data.... or even people to to emphansize global warming by skewing numbers, but the actual raw science behind global warming is rock solid, and most like bias (on both sides; if they both going after the research/interpretations from the deniers) and i defy anyone to effectively challenge it, to actually disprove it.
... and who´s paying them to do so. Anybody who doesn´t think there´s a butt-load of money in not doing anything about global warming needs to look into Exxon-Mobil´s record-breaking profits over the past decade ...
Then after they can look at the flip side and see gores profits from global warming.
I don´t like global warming because it focuses more on the outcome then the solutions. I wouldn´t mind if we broke away from the whole doomsay and moved back to focusing just on the solutions since solutions could actually fix the problem.
That auto industry has been really profitable lately, huh? What are you even talking about?
Carbon taxes and cap and trade are where the money´s at, literally dwarfing Big Oil. Interestingly enough, The same financiers that form global monopolies in banking own majorities in most major oil firms, with the notable exception of nationalized companies. These guys aren´t interested in money, they have all the money they need, and happen to own the world´s money presses. They want power, centralized, consolidated power. They want nothing less than global governance, and to reshape the world in the manner that pleases them. Spare me the tin-hat rhetoric, that only works in schoolyard peer pressure environments. The mentality of the masses, of not "fitting in", is not only what they count on and foster, it´s what they use to justify and qualify their right to wield power. My proclamations are not without heralds. These accusations are supported by the mouths of the men themselves, though whenever I supply documentation and sourcing, you seem to bow out of the conversation....
I think we´re not so different, Ben. I think you believe you´re playing for the team that can do the best for humanity. I think empathy and a sincere desire to help people are prime motivating factors in any neolib/democrat. But that desire must be tempered by rationale; we cannot emote our way to back to freedom. We cannot force the world, or even all 50 states, to march in step, and attempt to call it an improvement. All that we can do, on a personal level as well as an international stage, is lead by example. We can hold ourselves accountable, we can guarantee essential liberties to the least of our peoples, we can remove the den of vipers from our money supply and our educational systems, we can return our states to a "free market" of policy, where people can live in the communities that reflect thier values. We can become a nation of strong individuals who are aware that freedom isn´t free, but costs vigilance and responsibility. Or we can pay 51% of our earnings to the vipers, along with essential freedoms, and hope that they protect us from the triple threat of terrorism, global warming, and depression that they´ve designed, all the while thanking them for for taking the trouble of keeping 500 million of us alive to share their earth with them.
they could care less whether their cars are powered by petrol, petrol-alcohol, deisel, bio-deisel, electric, hybrid-electric, hydrogen, solar power, hell even nuclear power (which they have though about, namely in the 50´s and 60´s)... their only concern is selling cars and turning a profit, irreguardless of the energy source.
when it comes to profits from the automotive industry its ALL about the fuel, not the cars itself (you don´t see big oil needing bail-outs do you?). which again goes back to the oil companies and increasingly the petrol-ethyl companies, which are a vain attempt for the oil companies to maintain power over the automotive industry... the automotive industries is one of the cornerstones of their revenuestream.
Automobile manufacturers do care what type of fuel they use to power their products. Perhaps not for the reason´s you would have them care, but they do care.
The free market tells them what sort of fuel to care about and as of yet, the free market hasn´t stopped wanting gasoline powered automobiles. If it did, the diesel powered passenger car models of the eighties would still be available today.
Oh and please, don´t take this as an opportunity to launch a three post dissertation on why the auto industry sucks, America sucks and Americans suck. I´m merely pointing out that manufacturing companies make what they do based on what their customers want.
QUOTE: I´d like to know who´s trying to steal it... and who´s paying them to do so.
Don´t know who but I can say with some kind of justification. Whoever it is must have a pretty good idea there is data that will show this is a agenda driven hoax or they wouldn´t be spending the time or money risking jail time to acquire it. Don´t you agree?
QUOTE:A series of alleged break-ins at University of Victoria in British Columbia is evidence of a larger effort to discredit research on climate
No shit! Well no one wants to read the writing on the wall with the emails so maybe their doing their own study on what it takes to wake up people to the fact they are being taken for a ride.
QUOTE:Anybody who doesn´t think there´s a butt-load of money in not doing anything about global warming needs to look into Exxon-Mobil´s record-breaking profits over the past decade ...
WHAT?? I can tell you don´t own your own business and its a good thing too. I was under the impression the idea of business is to make money. I was sold on the idea and as a matter of fact I am kinda of proud when I make record profits over my prior years. That means I am doing something right. And I make more each year.. Can you imagine that??
You down the oil company for making a profit and you don´t have a clue that they are into so much more then oil.Not much comes from the oil Ben. I have a brother who is way up the ladder in Exxon Mobil. Been there for over 34 years when it was just Mobil. They are talking about getting out of the oil business because it is not profitable. Closing their refineries. These are facts! But none the less does that mean you down me and others who do well in business too? If business is not to make record breaking profits can you describe a business model I should build on. I would love to hear it.
Why don´t you focus your energy on drilling for our own oil and keep those profits here in the US where our money belongs. Hey maybe you can even take a moment and consider the thousands of Americans that big bad oil company keeps employed.
Did you buy an electric car yet Ben? Reason I ask is you bought into this global warming hook line and sinker. I would hope you are doing more then running your mouth to curb it. It would only be fitting to ride your bicycle to work you know,people may tend to take you serious.
You think its the oil company protecting its profits. OK! Lets look at the flip side. Do some research and get back to me on how many millions are being spent on the research. Then calculate how much tax revenue will be created if the Cap and trade passes. I believe without a doubt it will make Exxon´s profits look like chump change. If that is true who stands to gain and loose what over this. So please don´t go blaming the big bad oil company like Obama and Al Gore does. Your not in the same playing field as they are.
Exxon Mobil is not getting out of the oil business. They are simply moving their production facilities closer to where the highest demand for their products exists. Yes, they are closing US refineries, but not because they don´t like your brother or because there is no money in the petrochemical business. The petrochemical business is highly profitable and produces little waste. Again... they are repositioning themselves so they can better serve the demand for their products and earn more profits. Check out what they´re currently doing in China: http://www.chron.com/...
China is becoming an ever more developed country and we here in the US have only ourselves to blame for it. That is, if you would blame another country for bettering itself... myself, I don´t blame anyone for bettering themselves, rather, I applaud them.
Your arguments seem to favor business and profits only when it is American businesses and American people making profits and in the end, that´s very selfish thinking.
As a businessman, I would expect you should understand that markets change and therefore, marketing strategies must change in order for businesses to continue profiting. If you don´t, you very likely have a rude awakening coming at some point. As for your brother, I would advise him to consider a global move, or a shift to another expertise if he´s worried about his job.
We all now live in a global economy. There´s nothing we can do to change that fact but there is plenty we can to to capitalize on it. ;)
I don´t ride anything to work -- I work from home. I drive my car a few times a week. It gets 32 miles per gallon, and I fill it up once every four to six weeks (takes about 10 gallons).
I have reusable shopping bags. I collect rainwater for my plants. I have those spirally light bulbs. I signed up for an electric plan where 100 percent of my electricity comes from renewable resources.
I have thermal curtains on my windows, I use my bike for trips around my neighborhood (or just walk), I use rechargeable batteries, smart power strips and recycled paper and plastic products. I use environmentally friendly laundry detergent, dish-washing detergent and surface cleaner. I hang my clothes up to dry. I have cloth napkins and handkerchiefs that I actually wash and re-use.
So next time, you might refrain from insinuating that I´m a hypocrite until you know whether I am or not.
Perhaps you should take your own advise and research how long the US could sustain itself harvesting only the oil we have within the confines of our borders. We have to purchase crude oil from other parts of the world and while I´m not opposed to using our own oil supplies to a greater degree (for several reasons), but I also understand why we´ve been so damned consumed with democratizing only the parts of the world that have huge oil supplies. We need to GTFO and create free trade with these people. Instead, our government chooses the path of control rather than free trade. Then we itch our heads when people accuse us of being warmongers....
Lastly.. when US based companies go abroad and profit... they bring much of those profits back to the US where you claim they belong.
In short, you seem happy to use the world wide web in order to engage in debate so why are you so steadfastly against the notion of using the world wide marketplace in order to do business?
because the people in "free market" are TOLD want to want... rather than actually given options (the "free-market" people know and love is FAR from a real free market which is quite litterally control by big business; as you *should* well know)...
and even when they are given options those options are NEVER on a level playing feild, the cost of green tech costs alot namely because of how long its been suppressed (electric cars are actually older than internal combustion cars; but most people don´t know it) hence the R&D got pushed back decades (and hence also has their proformance developements); namely by the oil industry which controls the auto industry.
there´s NO infrastructure to support green vehicles commercially, no rapid rapid-charging, or battery swapping stations, no hydrogen pumps.
and advertising... even when a major company did make a commercial green vehicle they never put any kind of seriosu advertising beehind it (though it was obviously never intended to be mainstream by the company hence the lease mandating they all be return), infact the only real advertising they got was the few people that owned (leased, you weren´t allowed to buy them) all of which gave it a great review, yet ultimately they all lost their cars when GM (under pressure form the oil companies) recalled and destroyed all the EV1´s except a few that were disabled and put on display.
"Oh and please, don´t take this as an opportunity to launch a three post dissertation on why the auto industry sucks, America sucks and Americans suck."
" I have a brother who is way up the ladder in Exxon Mobil. Been there for over 34 years when it was just Mobil. They are talking about getting out of the oil business because it is not profitable. Closing their refineries. These are facts!"
ummm no exxon mobil is still VERY profitable... even up to last year they were posting record profits, they only dropped this year, because the recession finally caught up with them... and because a single barrel of crude isn´t $150 anymore. http://online.wsj.com/...
and they aren´t closing refinaries per-se, they´re moving them; from the US to china: http://www.chron.com/...
what you posted was a gross distortion of reality, because A) they are still profitable, and B) they are moving the refinaries rather than just shutting them down because they´re not profit as you imply to be facts which clearly aren´t.
in hindsight, BB aready elaborated on much of this
While you do touch on one element of truth about the free market as it exists in the US today, you fail to give credit to all those who deserve it. The free market didn´t ask for electric cars... the government forced the idea on manufacturers who were then faced with attempting to design an electric car that could meet both the consumer´s requirement of a vehicle that performed as well as a gas powered one while at the same time, appeasing the harsh regulations placed on them by the government. So yes, big business does tend to market what it needs to sell more than it would in an unfettered free market, but you cannot lay that blame solely at its feet.
As far as the first electric car is concerned... to assert that oil companies had anything to do with that technology failing is at best, ignorant. We´ve been over this before, but I must admit it´s been a while....
In the early 19th century, the developed world experienced the discovery of a great many new technologies and because of that, there were many inventors who brought us many great new things through their trial and error experimentation. One such trial was the use of electricity to power a buggy. This trial ended with error because at the time, electric batteries were weak and electric motors, mechanical gears, et al, were very heavy. Thus, the technology needed to facilitate an efficient, cost effective electric auto simply did not exist. It still doesn´t today, if compared to a common, gas powered auto and not because there are no "charging stations". On the contrary, the invention of the internal combustion engine created a source of horsepower that was far greater per pound than any electric motor of that time, which by the way, is still true and will likely always be true.
So in the end, there was no evil petroleum empire that squashed the development of the first electric autos. It was simply a function of trial and error that proved petroleum to be more practical. And again, it´s still more practical than electricity. It´s just that we´ve learned that the Earth can´t produce as much crude oil as we can consume.
"The free market didn´t ask for electric cars... the government forced the idea on manufacturers"
In ´who killed the electric car´ there were members of the public and public figures going on camera who claimed they tried to buy the cars. But GM made the cars available on a lease-term-only contract.
BigCorp used lawyers to repossess these cars and had them destroyed. Some cars still exist in garages, but only on contract that they remain ´disabled´.
I didn´t dispute that point, nor did I base any portion of my comment on any movie. Movies are at best, "based on true stories", therefore they are not credible as evidence of anything.
My comment was focused on Havoc´s distortion of history. Nothing more and nothing less.
over 100 years ago they already did... long before all the anti-electric propaganda came out. propaganda as counter advertising is another way of the oil companies telling people what they want.
"This trial ended with error because at the time, electric batteries were weak and electric motors, mechanical gears, et al, were very heavy."
how do you get 105km/h from a weak battery, mind you the battery probably didn´t last too long, but the power output could have been cut in half and still been on par with even internal combustion cars even a decade later.
""On the contrary, the invention of the internal combustion engine created a source of horsepower that was far greater per pound than any electric motor of that time, which by the way, is still true and will likely always be true."
horse power isn´t everything... an electric car can keep up with and even beat a ferrari these days... and back then... electric cars were still fast 105km/h is enough for highways here.
and i very much doubt that will always be true, as they are dangerously close to making an electric car identical to a gas drive car (same kind of car) and get nearly the same amount of power out of both.
and of course electric WILL always be faster, in terms of raw potential, you can make an electric car faster just by increasing voltage or decreasing resistance. while at some point the only think you´ll ba able do with gasoline is use more, because it has far less potential, while the potential for electric is near limitless...
"So in the end, there was no evil petroleum empire that squashed the development of the first electric autos."
actually yes they did... esspecially once they had their own horses in the race too.
" It was simply a function of trial and error that proved petroleum to be more practical."
except it took them a gap of around 50 years to get there, then it appear electric was abondond for decades while dominated solely by petrol, with might i ad in the first decade was WORSE than electric cars, esspecially for speed though that depends on the battery used at the time..
neat point of irony, petrol cars COULDN´T exist without electric cars, the lead-acid battery was designed for electric cars in 1865 (i think the year is correct).
"And again, it´s still more practical than electricity."
hardly... this ALL comes down to infrastructure (oil-based infrastructure is already there)... propaganda (telling people how bad electric cars are when in most respects they are just as good or better), suppression, buying up technology and vaulting it so it can´t be used in the in the so-called "free-market"
"It´s just that we´ve learned that the Earth can´t produce as much crude oil as we can consume"
this shouldn´t be the only reason to drive an electric anyways, they are clean, much faster in the low-end (which is emmensely more important than top speed for urban or highway driving).
electric car used to be quite popular and well liked then something happened, the oil companies got in on it... specifically on the infrastructure end, some even argue this was the real reason for prohobition (much as marijuana and hemp was outlawed because it could be used to make paper; the paper companies didn´t like that and thusly pressured the government to outlaw marijuana and hemp) which makes ALOT of sense when you think about the fact that the ford T model was designed to run on several fuels (gas, kerosene and alcohol), not just a single fuel as they are made today and have been for several decades, after they had the infrastructure in place it took decades to breathe life into the electric car concept, only to have it destroyed (litterally) at the behest of the oil companies... but alas they can´t keep the genie in the bottle forever.
"I didn´t dispute that point, nor did I base any portion of my comment on any movie. Movies are at best, "based on true stories", therefore they are not credible as evidence of anything."
DOCUMENTARY... and yes typically thats EXACTLY what documentaries are, evidence... they´re not movies made for entertain but for actual information..
oh and FYI, the only distortion was that in reference to the 19th century i mention the oil companies that didn´t happen till the 20th century, before that it was the coal industry, though they weren´t nearly as successful at it as the oil companies later became, namely because steam powered cars we even less efficent than the internal combustion cars but also because the infrastructure was more developed and easier to spread around, but not better than electric... but even more importantly the infastructure improvements of roads which connected cities all over many countries, which made long-distance travel more prevelent, which was the one downside of electric cars; range.
which again comes back to infrastructure the infrastructure for electric cars simply isn´t there... not the same way it is for regular gas, there´s no rapid charging station or battery swap stations which would be the equivelent of a gas station.
I see this less as an attempt to discredit the global warming religion, but more of an attempt to simply get the data (raw, skewed, faked, etc.) before they deleted it.
If the so-called "scientists" honored the Freedom of Information acts (in both the US and Great Britain), break-ins would not have been necessary.
They don´t seem to like FOIA. They predict the end of the world, but utterly refuse to show us the data upon which they base their dire predictions of doom and damnation. Then, to add insult to injury, they consider destroying the info before complying with a legal writ for its release!
Why is it necessary to hide anything if they have a sufficient factual case? Especially taxpayer funded research? And on what authority?
This is exactly the behavior that tarnishes their credibility and invites conspiracy theories.
From the ´hacked´ e-mails:
"If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I´ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our (sic) does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."
_ Phil Jones in a Feb. 2, 2005 conversation with Michael Mann.
