MasterMorte

Given an ISP address and the user data entry is traceable and retrievable?

Or do the sceptics post libel comments, hoping that a possible class action law suit (lodged by CRU or their supporters) will only be directed at any media organisations, politicians or high-profile figures that also made defamatory remarks (slander or libel) about the CRU's audited scientific work?

Note: The issue of electronic theft of email is a separate matter covered by The United States No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act), a federal law passed in 1997.

If you need to check what defamation is please go to link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

Are American juries really prejudice?

Man required to wear make-up to cover Nazi tattoos, so he will get a fair trial. Maybe black people could demand to be made to look white in Court in the hope they might get a fair trial?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/accused-mur...

Given sceptics are crazy enough to actually believe the entire world is somehow conspiring against them (apparently to collect their taxes), who would want to socialise with them?

NEWSFLASH sceptics : we ALL pay taxes and there is no magic slush fund for the environment, so your Climate-Gate theory is nothing more than a mass paranoid delusion, an Internet frenzy of non-intellectual thought.

They say things like "it is snowing outside today so global warming must be a myth".

Do you think sceptics even understand how complex the environment is and how long-term (not short term) the problem is, or perhaps you believe sceptics are well aware and only create stupid urban myths like this in order to promote their Climate-Gate Internet frenzy for just a few more days?

http://trak.in/news/city-sized-iceberg-heading-tow...

Oh wait, it is snowing in Texas so it must be a gigantic fraud. What is it about the word "change" that sceptics don't get. Colder OR warmer winters, hotter OR cooler summers were all predicted years ago so a "cool change" in Houston is hardly surprising.

Fact is no one knows what effects will take place and judging climate-change by what is happening outside your own window is narrow minded.

Is it because these emails clearly show that scientists were complaining about data quality but happily sharing that data with anyone who cared?...and this fact does not fit the "conspiracy" theory?

http://www.desmogblog.com/stolen-emails-show-scien...

Are Climate-Gate alarmists even aware that new modelling, WITHOUT the data in question, provides the same results anyway?

Do the alarmists research anything at all, or are they too focussed on pushing their own agendas to notice the truth? This could explain their intelligible answers with no LINKS!

Saudi Arabia — not exactly desperate to end the world’s dependency on fossil fuels.

Sarah Palin supported Saudi Arabia by calling on President Barack Obama to boycott Copenhagen over climategate and the “agenda-driven science”, despite not being able to produce evidence of any conspiracy, any reason for one, or any falsified data.

Is "Climate-Gate" proving to be just another unsubstantiated, insignificant Internet frenzy event?

...and then restart their dastardly climate-change conspiracy after Obama became President?

What about during Clinton's term or even Reagan's?

Do sceptics seriously think the 59% of America who accept the science must have shares in green business and are part of a global plan to tax the non-believers? What about the scientists who have only studied climate change this century....were they accepted into the conspiracy clan, on blood oath to ruin the taxation system, like in some secret Freemason society?

Then we can steal their emails and fabricate a conspiracy theory.

If sceptics want a debate, then bring something to the table. Sceptics admit it, you have nothing, nada, diddly squat, to support lunatic conspiracy theories.

So how do sceptics explain ecosystem extinction (due to warming), when the latest sceptic argument to do nothing is based on ideas that Earth warming/cooling happens all the time over the aeons, and is nothing unusual?

Logically, if this is cyclical, species and their ecosystems would evolve/develop coping mechanisms in order to survive these so called "cycles" of warming/cooling.

Cite example: Coral Bleaching - Temperature increases of only 1.5–2°C lasting for six to eight weeks are enough to trigger bleaching. After more than eight weeks, corals begin to die. Many other stressors can also cause bleaching including disease, sedimentation, pollutants and changes in salinity but these stressors usually operate at local scales. Elevated water temperature is of greater concern as it can affect reefs at regional to global scales. When bleaching occurs at these large spatial scales, it is a mass bleaching event. A particularly severe, worldwide bleaching event occurred in 1998, effectively destroying 16 per cent of the world’s reefs. The Great Barrier Reef was affected by this global bleaching event and by another event in 2002.

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/key_issues/clim...

This simple example demonstrates sceptics cannot grasp the concept that, even if raw data were altered, upon review an ice core or earth core sample would still only reveal it is what it is...old data that we can compare to current readings.

Sceptics who are quick to say climate-change data is "fudged" might stop to ponder that science is always controversial but never "settled". Refer to Einstein.

Background: Today a YA sceptic answered that because humans were not here 4 billion years ago to collect data then we could not know if climate-change is accelerated by human activity or not. Wow, how did we find out about dinosaurs then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

http://climate.nasa.gov/

NASA accepted climate data for modelling space journeys, so why can't the sceptics? Are the sceptics smarter than NASA?

Maybe the sceptics think the moon landing and every space journey since was faked too?

Poor Richard Branson, his dreams of space tourism are in ruins, all because the sceptics uncovered the biggest fraud of the century!

The recalcitrance of sceptics becomes more ludicrous by the day.

Sceptics claim the cost of action is either too great or unnecessary.

Proponents claim acting now 'might' avoid monumentally greater costs incurred by inaction.

Sceptics claim nothing will happen or (for those who acknowledge that things are happening now) they claim the changes are normal cycles and unavoidable.

Proponents provide evidence that fossil fuels are going to run out in any case, and the climate is changing, and correlative data implies human activity is either causing abnormal climate-changes or is interfering with natural climate-changes.

Sceptics dismiss the data as a "fraud" or a "hoax".

Proponents admit some people will make money from green energy but point out that is how the economy works - demand and supply.

Moving past the conspiracy theories, as a gambler is it better to be safe or sorry?

Some sceptics claim the Earth is cooling, some say Sun spots are causing things to change, some say the Earth is warming but this is normal or "cyclical", and some seem to believe the rest of world is plotting against them by changing data in order to impose some great unwanted tax.

Now we know the action required to combat Climate-Change is not yet agreed either, but at least they are united in doing something instead of giving up.

When candidates 1 and 2 were ousted after going on the record in support of proposed Climate-Change legislation.

Aussie question but anyone can answer left vs right political question.

Background info for interested: Tony Abbott is new leader of the conservative Australian Liberal Party, and in opposition with the Nationals (the Coalition). Tony Abbott said quote "climate change is absolute crap" and claims most Australians do not accept the scientific evidence that climate change is occurring now or caused by humans. This claim remains controversial and tainted by conspiracy theorists and yet still disproved.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/politics/a...

Candidate #2 (Joe Hockey) couldn't lodge a serious claim for the position after he supported the CPRS legislation that the new leader opposed. The ousted, former leader (Malcolm Turnbull see article) said he will cross the floor regarding the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and described Tony Abbott's climate-change policy as quote "bullsh-t", see article.

The Australian Government possesses a trigger for a Double Dissolution Election on CPRS but has so far decided to try the Senate (where the Govt does not have the numbers) a third time in February.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/6562...

Australia is officially the world's worst polluter per capita already, so consider the message houses like this send to Copenhagen, and the new owner's eco-footprint on Mother Earth. (hippie/commie/socialist/libtard/tree-hugger tags don't stick simply because I want to protect the planet I live on, but if you must insult me at least be interesting)

There was never such a thing. There was an energy crisis in 1973 but I have searched the Internet to find historical information about this ice-age scare but all I can find is links to conspiracy theorists. Perhaps the sceptics think the data was deleted ha ha?

from wikipedia: "The 1973 oil crisis started in October 1973, when the members of Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries or the OAPEC (consisting of the Arab members of OPEC, plus Egypt and Syria) proclaimed an oil embargo "in response to the U.S. decision to re-supply the Israeli military" during the Yom Kippur war; it lasted until March 1974.[1]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis

There was never such a thing. There was an energy crisis in 1973 but I have searched the Internet to find historical information about this ice-age scare but all I can find is links to conspiracy theorists. Perhaps the sceptics think the data was deleted ha ha?

from wikipedia: "The 1973 oil crisis started in October 1973, when the members of Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries or the OAPEC (consisting of the Arab members of OPEC, plus Egypt and Syria) proclaimed an oil embargo "in response to the U.S. decision to re-supply the Israeli military" during the Yom Kippur war; it lasted until March 1974.[1]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis

The science was "never settled" then either but we didn't pander to the sceptics and banned CFCs anyway, to allow ozone regeneration. It worked.

When is science ever settled?...and what red herring argument is that anyway?

Sceptics back then used the same "sky isn't falling" analogy as they use to debate climate change today in the 21st century.

Or do you think positive actions will actually improve our economy by massively reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and reaping the benefits of home-grown jobs in renewable energy production?

Even if Climate-Change is not a massive disaster wouldn't cleaning up the atmosphere create jobs and improve the economy, plus really put OPEC in their place which we have been itching to do for years?