10:10 No Pressure Movie Taken Down After Complaints (Video)

Frank if you can 't see this as a propaganda message of the most sinister variety then you are in trouble.   When I was at school in the seventies I was taught on and on about how there was a new ice age coming just around the corner, then it was global warming, then when they realised that wasn't working, they changed it to cliimate change.   Climate change? It is constantly changing I can't remember two years in a row with the same weather patterns. CO2? Plants breathe it produce oxygen and make our food, we need it in the cycle it is not a menace.   Do you know that in their Copenhagen treaty it was specifically stipulated that planting trees was not usable as a Carbon credit. Well their Carbon credit system is a con job in the first place and then to exclude the very thing that would be the cure for the problem if it really did exist well it just shows that the whole thing is a big scam, and more and more people are aware which is why this stupid piece of propaganda was pulled straight away, the people reacted, we aren't going to be fooled anymore by this BS.

Frank Teams C to C2 actually all look to be on Team A to me. But I comment on a few as follows: Team D (the AGU) listened to a presentation by Dr Roy Spencer on 16th Dec 2009 entitled "On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcings". Spencer asked all 300 of them present at the conclusion why they had all used a CO2 to water vapour feedback figure that was positive in their models where his presentation shows this figure is most likely negative (19 models as relied on by the IPCC - one of them Hansen's own team model) - the answer from all was something akin to 'weve always assumed its positive' its axiomatic isnt it? They (including Hansens people) agreed to do some more work on this front. Spencer has since published a paper (24th August 2010) - you can find it here - www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer-Braswell-JGR-2010.pdf Team M produces substantial media info that I read as firstly emphasising effects, is poor on causes yet still has conclusions - this is not science. I see both these institutions slowly slowly losing public respect because of it. Team C2 just published a significant backing off on there AGW claims of a few years ago. You have suggested these Team A guys 'have documented or examined the evidence and found it to be accurate and true' - exactly what evidence have they so examined that concludes 'man made CO2 causes dangerous global warming' - I think none - if you think otherwise then as before I invite you to table it. The Met Office reference you made relies on models and models are not evidence - they might fit a small windows of time data sets but they do not fit large windows of time data sets - therefore they are flawed ie they are not evidence. Phil Jones was interviewed by Roger Harrabin of the BBC on 13th February 2010 - the following question and answer was in that interview: Q. Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming A. Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods. Frank the point here is that Phil Jones is conceding to a different position now in 2010 than he had in 2004, in other words hes changing his mind. Its not overly clear to me that you have done any recent work that readily finds my arguments to be based on mis-quotes and nonsense even though this is what you say about what I have written. It seems to me that you have basically chosen not to look up what Phil Jones has said more recently and you are also going close to suggesting models are evidence - which they are not. Your ask what my agenda is - there is no secret to my agenda. I like the scientific method - 'observe, question, hypothesise, predict & test and return to a new hypothesis on fail or a new prediction on pass'. And from this I like it that we can build a sound understanding of how all things operate. And in turn from this make policy for society. Good policy comes from science - simple. Unfortunately, most of my investigation leads me to conclude that many scientists and lots of politicians (and activists) are prepared to compromise science, by focussing on alarmism and avoiding real evidence, and are doing so for power or money. Not that its new - Galileo, Darwin and Einstein to name a few struggled with the same problem. Like you I dont enjoy the ugly side of the debate - I might get robust or very forthright but never with the intention of being rude. Like you I agree it would be great to have a real debate going. I am in Australia - but TV media debating on this subject has been pretty much stifled - although some minor programming methods are changing this a little of late. Lastly I'm concerned about your coming to 'natural' conclusions - this smacks of conclusion where emotion or belief gets in the way - I hope not. Science has a way of being more brutal than we would like sometimes and we do need to learn to live with that.

Frank, I feel for you man, I really do. Nobody wants to breathe bad air, drink bad water, etc., but in this instance, regardless of how someone who does'nt believe in anthropogenic global warming and the Co2 cause (Al Gore's movies for example) puts their point across, how articulate or inarticulate they may be, they are in the right on this one. Until the people pushing this are put in their proper sphere, the environment will never get better, because the people who are REALLY pushing this(funding the idea) do not have the environment in mind. Now, this is provable without a shadow of a doubt, and as I said, I feel for you cause we ALL have been indoctrinated to some degree and for whatever reason, be it not wanting to believe in anything that would cause them concern, or actual brains to see through the lies, it makes no difference, like I said, they are in the right on this. If you look(really look) you will see it is not the oil companies(the big one's) that are against global warming and especially the idea of carbon credits, they are pushing it wholeheartedly. Forget the money part for a moment, you obviously have a pc, you can easily read how the Club of Rome(whom Al Gore is a member) said, years ago, that they would use fake environmentalism and fake terrorism to bring about their agenda, which, I won't go into, not enough space. Quotes : "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?" - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme"If we don't change, our species will not survive... Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse." -Maurice Strong quoted in the September 1, 1997 edition of National Review magazine."In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill...All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."- Club of Rome,The First Global Revolution, consultants to the UN. Now, remember(or find out for yourself, depending on your age), that it was'nt that long ago that there was another big scare put out by the powers that be(to continue an advance of an agenda-like always) and it was global cooling, we're all doomed, another ice age. I have no doubt you care about the environment(as do I), if you really want something to fight against to help the environment and humanity, how about these ideas - genetically modified salmon are about to be introduced(it would take to long to go into all the problems with that, for natural salmon and humans), and GM crops in general are a horror-show waiting to happen, dead zones in the oceans, a ton of bills to not only to criminalize organic farming but make it illegal for you to grow your own food, it goes on forever. Btw, the Maurice Strong quotes above, he himself lives in China now(has a residence there anyway) and makes a ton of money off of the old style coal plants, while saying N. America should not have any coal plants, proving, his ideas(and he is not alone, he is a Rockefeller protege and a bigwig at the UN) have nothing to do with the environment. Also, remember(or find out) that the Kyoto protocol only called for certain nations to cut their carbon emissions (China, India) were exempt. There is an agenda here, I am sorry to say, and if enough people don't wake up to it, well, you would'nt believe me if I told you, look into it for yourself, and afterwards, suck up the fact that you've been conned and lied to, and start speaking out against this nonsense.

Frank:   Looks like Team J is now in for a hiding too - see news of a few days ago  thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.pdf Long standing respected member of the APS resigns due to the corruption of science and the role of money. I suspect one by one most of the 'teams' will fall into disgrace - lets hope a good number of them work it out before that happens to all.