Global warming a scam? Hacked Hadley data might suggest so.

stiggles

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
941
Location
Devon, United Kingdom
This sort of thing just makes people who do Actual Science (the sort that happens in labs, the field and whathaveyou, and not the sort that happens on BBC News 24) look bad.
Barring any out-of-context issues, if these e-mails are true then there's some serious potential scientific misconduct going on.
Michael Mann. What an arse.
 

freefall

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2008
Messages
892
Car(s)
MX-5 NC
Yes, but what advantage was gained from splitting up the forces and confusing the issue? It's clear from the subsequent actions that there was a real desire to go to Iraq. 9/11 wasn't necessary to go to Iraq - though it was certainly used to help justify it, that was more because it was there - and considering the entire argument for going to Iraq was some WMDs - which also implies that if they wanted to stage an attack, they'd use those instead of hijackings, because that fits their preferred target better - they would have tried to justify it anyway with or without 9/11.
I agree that the link between Iraq and 9/11 is not the strongest one, but it is obvious that the 'terrorist' attacks made it much, much easier to convince the general public. Quote from wiki (and these facts can be easily verified, so no wiki harassment please):
The main allegations were that Hussein was in possession of, or was attempting to produce, weapons of mass destruction ... and that he had ties to terrorists, specifically al-Qaeda. While it never made an explicit connection between Iraq and the September 11 attacks, the George W. Bush administration repeatedly insinuated a link, thereby creating a false impression for the US public.
As for the real reason, the most plausible cause for me is that Hussein had threatened to quit trading oil in dollars and switch to euros instead. And, as mentioned before, arms industry, army support contracts, infrastructure reconstruction contracts.

In fact, you can tell from the focus of the investigations and the war effort that the Bush administration really didn't want to go to Afghanistan. It's inconvenient because it wasn't their primary goal, their forces are spread out, and the terrain isn't favorable. For a supposed inside job and a plan, the pieces don't fit very well. Why would they want to stage an attack in order to go somewhere they knew they were ill suited to fight?
It's not like the whole country is or the whole administration, for that matter, was involved. There were groups of people who were to benefit from it, and they have successfully pushed their agenda. Conveniently, some of the individuals were holding key positions.

You can argue that assorted governments took advantage of 9/11. You can't argue they caused it, because it doesn't make any sense.
I never said that the only way to come to this conclusion was to see who benefited from the attacks. It is a number one thing to look for, but in this case there's plenty of evidence (in my opinion) that indicates a massive gov-t coverup of an operation which could not have been carried out without at least high-level assistance from within.
 
Last edited:

wooflepoof

Watermelon Connoisseur
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
5,047
Location
Texas
Car(s)
Genesis Sedan 3.8
I never said that the only way to come to this conclusion was to see who benefited from the attacks. It is a number one thing to look for, but in this case there's plenty of evidence (in my opinion) that indicates a massive gov-t coverup of an operation which could not have been carried out without at least high-level assistance from within.
Hijacking a plane pre 9/11 was not very difficult and certainly not without precedent Read up on the FAAs [no longer used] "common strategy" policy and "Social Engineering".

please lets not have anymore of this crap we reeeeeally don't need another Scud. 9/11 threads get locked up for a reason.

in b4 part of coverup etc.
 
Last edited:

freefall

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2008
Messages
892
Car(s)
MX-5 NC
I'm not talking about hijacking planes.

Well, anyway, I linked to the operation northwoods, if it doesn't rise an eyebrow - then so be it.
I'm not going to force anyone to change their opinion if they desperately want to believe in the official story.

I can try to answer some questions if they're asked, and that's it.
 

wooflepoof

Watermelon Connoisseur
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
5,047
Location
Texas
Car(s)
Genesis Sedan 3.8
Don't try to instigate further argument by saying "desperately wants to believe" cuz you're just as guilty of "desperately wanting to believe" its a cover up :rolleyes:. I swear, its like arguing with creationists. just picking these disparate little 'facts' to cobble together this massive conspiracy/coverup/whatever.
 

freefall

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2008
Messages
892
Car(s)
MX-5 NC
Wooflepoof, the difference is, I wouldn't be locking any threads, and I'm prepared for a calm fact-based argument. Scud got nice replies there, right from post one. Good manners.
 

2Billion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
3,642
Car(s)
'10 Toyota Matrix XR
You say the motives line up, I say they don't. To bring this back to the topic at hand, a conspiracy would work like this fudged data. There's a clear line between the data fudged and the results intended. They want to get people using less carbon emissions and start a strong environmental movement, possibly to get more research funding. They tweak data and get a documentary out the door that supports their viewpoint and gets global warming in the spot light. We have a direct link between the desired effects and the actions taken to get there. A few high publicity moves, and suddenly we've got people buying hybrids and wanting to do more research. Clear cause and effect.

Northwoods again, you've got the desired effect - invasion of Cuba - and the proposed plan to get there - coordinated "terrorist" attacks in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. There's a strong link between the desired effect and the action taken to get there.

Now, your 9/11 inside job theory. The desired effect would be, essentially, an invasion of Iraq, if you consider how things went after the fact. So in order to get there, we have four coordinated terrorist attacks, two of which are unnecessary if you just want to get a point of cross, one of which puts you at great risk (if it's a gov't conspiracy, crashing into the Pentagon isn't exactly a safe move) which use means unrelated to the reasoning to go to Iraq (if you're planning to push WMDs, you're going to use them). Then there's an expensive and resource-stretching go in Afghanistan, an area which the US Military knows is not an advantageous battle zone since they've been there before. If you're going to pick fights for fun and profit, you usually try to find terrain that works for you, rather than against you.

It doesn't work as a conspiracy theory because there's no concrete link between the spark and the after effects. What plans there are happen to be fumbled through and are messy, as though they were hastily drawn up after an unexpected event. Even if an Iraq invasion was planned well in advance the link to 9/11 is pretty much "oh yeah, and they like terrorists too," not exactly the strongest connection. Are you suggesting that they planned an elaborate terrorist attack and left behind no evidence entirely for what is effectively a footnote?

I swear, sometimes people become so skeptical they become gullible.
 

freefall

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2008
Messages
892
Car(s)
MX-5 NC
You say the motives line up, I say they don't.
I didn't say they perfectly line up. After all, Iraq only came in 2003. If anything, Iraq is the weakest link in this story, however you look at it. But, and it is a proven fact again, 9/11 was used to some extent to convince American people in the necessity of the war. It was not the only argument, it was not the main argument, but it did play neatly to the plan, despite there was no proven connection, as with WMD.

I have to make it clear at this point that I made up my mind about the whole thing being a cover-up solely based on facts and events that either preceded 9/11 or happened within months of it. With a few exceptions of witness interviews and scientific studies which took place later.

To bring this back to the topic at hand, a conspiracy would work like this fudged data. There's a clear line between the data fudged and the results intended. They want to get people using less carbon emissions and start a strong environmental movement, possibly to get more research funding. They tweak data and get a documentary out the door that supports their viewpoint and gets global warming in the spot light. We have a direct link between the desired effects and the actions taken to get there. A few high publicity moves, and suddenly we've got people buying hybrids and wanting to do more research. Clear cause and effect.
Well, as I said, the intended result is the fear of terrorism and willingness to give up civil freedoms as a small 'bonus'. Since terrorists "have no face and no nationality", you can basically point at anyone and claim something along the lines of "intelligence reports on terrorist activity", "terror threats", "national security threats", "possible attacks".
Conveniently, they were "absolutely certain" that there were WMD in Iraq, and it posed huge threat to the American public. No WMD were ever found, no real evidence of potential threat except some verbal abuse from Saddam. Everyone sort of shrugged and forgot it. So why was Iraq invaded, again? What was the real reason, if we set aside all conspiracy theories?

Northwoods again, you've got the desired effect - invasion of Cuba - and the proposed plan to get there - coordinated "terrorist" attacks in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. There's a strong link between the desired effect and the action taken to get there.
I commented on this above, the whole point, in my opinion, was to spread the fear of terrorism. And then anyone and everyone can become a terrorist. Then again, in a country that has just suffered such a huge loss, any military action against an Arab country (which in the eyes of most is a racial category) is justifiable. Hey, we saw a terrorist in a cave there!

Now, your 9/11 inside job theory. The desired effect would be, essentially, an invasion of Iraq, if you consider how things went after the fact. So in order to get there, we have four coordinated terrorist attacks, two of which are unnecessary if you just want to get a point of cross, one of which puts you at great risk (if it's a gov't conspiracy, crashing into the Pentagon isn't exactly a safe move) which use means unrelated to the reasoning to go to Iraq (if you're planning to push WMDs, you're going to use them). Then there's an expensive and resource-stretching go in Afghanistan, an area which the US Military knows is not an advantageous battle zone since they've been there before. If you're going to pick fights for fun and profit, you usually try to find terrain that works for you, rather than against you.
War in Afghanistan came before the war in Iraq, and was strongly linked to the attacks. See no contradiction here. Again, I don't know when and why exactly was Iraq invasion originally planned. I listed possible reasons in one of the previous posts. What I know is that the official reasons are generally accepted to be a proven lie for the lack of promised evidence.

It doesn't work as a conspiracy theory because there's no concrete link between the spark and the after effects. What plans there are happen to be fumbled through and are messy, as though they were hastily drawn up after an unexpected event.
That's the beauty of it. It wouldn't be a conspiracy if there was hard evidence that the military response was planned in advance, after all. I'm not saying that the whole gov-t was involved, there were a lot of people who had no idea. And they did their duty to protect the country. Only *someone* pointed where the threat is supposed to come from. And then a lot of money was earned by the same people or their families. If it was an operation of some sort, it would be a secret operation, don't you think. I know, I sound like a tinfoil-hat man :lol:

Even if an Iraq invasion was planned well in advance the link to 9/11 is pretty much "oh yeah, and they like terrorists too," not exactly the strongest connection. Are you suggesting that they planned an elaborate terrorist attack and left behind no evidence entirely for what is effectively a footnote?
I wouldn't call the Patriot Act a footnote. Would you?

As for "left no evidence" - here I disagree. There is enough for me to base my opinion solely on it, without any "final goal" implications, which do not look contradictory to me either. Not very convincing, in the case of Iraq, but not the least bit contradictory.
 

Night_Hawk

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2006
Messages
1,514
Location
Gander Newfoundland
Car(s)
1996 Corolla 1.8 - 1996 Acura 3.5 RL
Wasn't there a thread this past summer or something the same as this?

I remember reading something a while ago with the same general idea.
 

2Billion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
3,642
Car(s)
'10 Toyota Matrix XR
I say that the entire plan is fumbled, messy, and doesn't connect together and suddenly that's part of the plan. I point out that the entire plan leads to going to war with a country that you never actually wanted to go to war with - which, I should point out, has terrain that is ill suited to really fancy war gadgets, so it wouldn't be a military contractor's hundredth choice - and you somehow ignore that. About the only point you have is that it creates a boogeyman, but that's quite easy to do anyway, and doesn't involve going to war with a country you never wanted to go to war with in the first place.

Fine though, if you want to believe in a badly planned (yet somehow well covered up), unwieldy, and highly improbable conspiracy, go for it, it's clear you're so committed to the idea that no amount of pointing out the cracks in your thinking is going to work.
 
Last edited:

freefall

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2008
Messages
892
Car(s)
MX-5 NC
I didn't say they perfectly line up ... If anything, Iraq is the weakest link in this story, however you look at it.

...

I have to make it clear at this point that I made up my mind about the whole thing being a cover-up solely based on facts and events that either preceded 9/11 or happened within months of it. With a few exceptions of witness interviews and scientific studies which took place later.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,819
Hitler was the mastermind of 9/11.

There, it is done. Oh, and thanks for crashing the thread, freefall. :roll:
^ What he said.


Wasn't there a thread this past summer or something the same as this?
I remember reading something a while ago with the same general idea.
This stuff comes up all the time because people that believe the conspiracy story get their panties in a knot because no one pays attention to them so they feel the need to keep bringing it up.
 

wooflepoof

Watermelon Connoisseur
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
5,047
Location
Texas
Car(s)
Genesis Sedan 3.8
So how about this global warming huh? Crazy stuff
 

Evel

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
2,037
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Car(s)
2016 Chevrolet Colorado
Who knows really, no one with credibility has "done the maths"?
It is quite hard to do the maths if now there's evidence to suggest that most sources are faking the temperatures. You'd have to have your own temperature figures for the past several years.

Come to think of it, how do they calculate these figures anyways?
 

MacGuffin

Forum Addict
DONOR
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
8,274
Location
Wilhelmshaven, Germany
Car(s)
'17 Ford Mustang GT Fastback
Assuming this has any effect on the public perception (which I doubt it will, since the self-blaming and the fear of the future are strong motivators, even if they're based on false facts), does that mean we get rid of all those silly hybrid cars? :mrgreen:

By the way: The ones who were caught red-handed make no attempt of denial. They are even trying to attack with staements like "So what if Newton was an asshole? His laws are still valid" (Gavin A. Schmidt, a climate researcher for NASA).

Speaks for itself...
 
Last edited:

stiggles

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
941
Location
Devon, United Kingdom
Come to think of it, how do they calculate these figures anyways?
They get data from loads of sources. The most recent come from remotely sensed satellite telemetry. Thermometer records go back a couple of hundred years, the earliest set is from Central England, but coverage is patchy.
On the scale of a few thousand to a few hundred thousand years palaeoclimate reconstruction is required and that usually comes from examining trapped air bubbles in deep ice cores, pollen and plant macrofossils in soil cores, oxygen isotope ratios in ocean floor cores and stuff like that.
 
Top