Who’s to Blame for Climategate?

I am guessing you probably have seen this, but when talking about the CFU thing, it is nice to take these guy's input into account - a bit more thought out and comprehensive than what the Telegraph/Times/Post/Fox has to say:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2...

'As people are also no doubt aware the breaking into of computers and releasing private information is illegal, and regardless of how they were obtained, posting private correspondence without permission is unethical. We therefore aren’t going to post any of the emails here.'
Sounds like abit of a cop-out to me, how can it be more comprehensive when they haven't discussed one single email. There is alot of damning evidence that show the scientists colluded together, deleted email's requested for FOI, fixed results etc.
Also, as for the government conspiracy thing, how about the Iraq war and weapons of mass distruction? I seem to remember that they didn't find anything, but went to war anyway. GOVERNMENTS LIE ALL THE TIME.

Emperorreagan, Kevin and Hypnos1 try this site it might open your eyes abit http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/

Sure. Governments lie. There's just typically a reason for doing so. So what is the motivation for the western world governments to collude together, invent the idea of climate change, keep the ball rolling in the periphery for decades, and for the majority of climate scientists and scientists in general to go along for the ride?

I glanced at the website and didn't find it particularly compelling. If you're interested in making a serious website to present serious ideas, perhaps you should forgo trumpeting stories that are basically harassment (the Al Gore book signing -incidentally, an obscene fascist?- or dissing a reporter), peddling merchandise, or pictures of Liv Tyler.

The reason is tax and control/power. What was the reason for lying about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction? Oil maybe? I don't think it was for peace or freedom.
Its not my website i just liked it. never noticed the liv tyler pic before, i had read the bits About CO2, Climate 101 and looked at the petitions. I found it alot more believable than the same rhetoric the MSM reports.
Also i think it's quite funny that the MSM switches between climate change and global warming, depending on the weather outside. I agree that we should pollute less, consume less, etc, I just think that what is being done at the moment is for all the wrong reasons. The fact that Oil companies are backing man-made global warming makes me very dubious.

I don't buy the tax/control/power reasoning. I think the issue is being forced because it's more difficult to deny not only climate change, but other water and energy issues we have collectively ignored for a long time. There are other issues, too, that seldom see the light of day in the discussion of climate change - hydrological cycles have changed over the years as we've changed the face of the land and human pollution has replaced natural pollution. The formation of water droplets that will subsequently fall as rain is slower with human pollution versus natural pollution which has had the effect of pushing rainfall eastward and off the North American land mass, for example.

Of course, just because people are beginning to recognize the tidal wave of problems headed our way doesn't mean they're going to offer good solutions. The cap and trade solution is pretty much a scam to make money off of the CO2 issue and will screw small companies & enrich larger ones.

Ideally, I would actually prefer a CO2 tax with all proceeds going to fund research directed towards limiting pollution, upgrading the power grid, and other measures that would directely impact pollution and/or energy efficiency. Pollution taxes in general applied to products, so that we see the true cost of the products/energy/etc. we use and can make informed decisions. What's the true cost of my cell phone? I have no idea. I can't make an informed decision about it. I see a price that Verizon determines after the cell phone is produced through a tangle of government subsidies, tariffs, regulatory waivers, etc. If I knew the true cost of the phone, I could actually weigh whether the convenience of a cell phone was worth the premium over a land line & answering machine.

I guess the other point is that we collectively pay for the clean-up of pollution through taxes anyway. It's just whether we pay for it upfront or pay later when the issue is bad enough that the government is forced to allocate taxes for clean-up.

I dont think we totally dissagree, however on the issue of "man made climate change" the climate will change, it does that. the human race has a delusion of grandure to think we can alter the world eco system so much in such a short period of time. we do need to take responsibility for our destruction and waste. I believe deforestation for intensive farming has a larger more immediate impact and if corrected would keep our air clean. Screw co2
As for the consumer, the downward spiral has allready started, if more people like you were conscious of the real cost of their "cell phone" etc the whole waste industry/capatalism would not exist in the first place. I think a pollution tax would not stop the consmption of products and resources, meerly justify the short lifespan we expect from them. (ie: a new computer/laptop every 12 months as the technology improves)

One of the key points put forward by the man made global warming crowd is the 'consensus' of scientific opinion. About 15 seconds worth of Googling revealed that 31,000 scientists signed a petition last year denouncing man made global warming. So much for a consensus. Why have we not heard more from those people? Why does the government and media go out of their way to present only one side of the matter?

Because its a vast conspiracy out to get you. Hundreds of millions of the smartest people of the world have all been meeting in secret because apparently this is the only way to achieve their one world government. And they're going to take your guns. And they're both communist and fascist all at the same time. And they're going to kill your grandma cos she is old.

Consensus among scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals, among scientific organizations like NASA, NOAA, & the American Institute of Physics, and among national scientific academies like the National Academy of Science in US or the Academie des Sciences in France.

97% of scientists whose expertise is in climate science agree on the human contribution to climate change, according to a study out of one of the University of California institutions, with more than 80% of scientists overall agreeing. 80% isn't bad, when you're including scientists who have no experience in the realm of climate (which is where the vast majority of those 31,000 signatures you mention lie).

half of the institutions you listed above are government run. university of california also does quite a bit for the u.s. department of defense.

Of course they're government run. Governments pay for the majority of basic scientific research.

Also, lest anyone forget, the Bush administration directly interfered in scientific reports issued by the US federal government on the topic of climate change. They also suppressed evidence in favor of climate change where they could: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/...

I'm at a loss as to why anyone thinks there would be some sort of grand government conspiracy about climate change. Denying climate change, on the other hand, makes a lot of sense. Consume less, pollute less, use less energy is much harder to make money on than is bigger, better, more.