The Death of the Man-Made Global Warming Hoax

Pay no attention to the emails. Global warming is real, I say.

Pay no attention to the emails. Global warming is real, I say.

Yes, I am thankful.

Just a few considerations in addition to previous remarks about the explosion of the East Anglia Climategate e-mails in America. The reaction is growing exponentially there. Fox News, Barack Obama’s Nemesis, is now on the case, trampling all over Al Gore’s organic vegetable patch and breaking the White House windows. It has extracted some of the juiciest quotes from the e-mails and displayed them on-screen, with commentaries. Joe Public, coast-to-coast, now knows, thanks to the clowns at East Anglia’s CRU, just how royally he has been screwed.


Senator James Inhofe’s Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has written to all the relevant US Government agencies, acquainting them with the nature of the e-mails. But the real car crash for Obama is on Capitol Hill where it is now confidently believed his Cap and Trade climate legislation is toast. It was always problematic; but with a growing awakening to the scale of the scientific imposture sweeping the world, as far as the Antipodes, the clever money is on Cap and Trade laws failing to pass, with many legislators sceptical and the mid-term elections looming ever closer.


At the more domestic level, the proposed ban on incandescent light bulbs, so supinely accepted in this servile state of Britain, is now provoking a huge backlash in America. US citizens do not like the government coming into their houses and putting their lights out. Voters may not understand the cut and thrust of climate debate at the technical level, but they know when the Man from Washington has crossed their threshold uninvited.


The term that Fox News is now applying to the Climategate e-mails is “game-changer”. For the first time, Anthropogenic Global Warming cranks are on the defensive, losing their cool and uttering desperate mantras such as “You can be sceptical, not denial.” Gee, thanks, guys. In fact we shall be whatever we want to be, without asking your permission.


At this rate, Copenhagen is going to turn into a comedy convention with the real world laughing at these liars. Now is the time to mount massive resistance to the petty tyrants and hit them where it hurts – in the wallet. Further down the line there may be, in many countries, a question of criminal prosecution of anybody who has falsified data to secure funds and impose potentially disastrous fiscal restraints on the world in deference to a massive hoax. It’s a new world out there, Al, and, as you may have noticed, the climate is very cold indeed.

Comments

  1. Philip Erwin says:

    You should stop watching Fox News so much and pay attention to other news sources. The farce is in the notion that some illegally obtained emails have any evidence to indicate any kind of ‘game changer’. In fact, it has just gone to show that the scientists are just as human as the skeptics who challenge them.

    Turn the channel once in a while. They didn’t really mean it when they said ‘fair and balanced’….unless you hop around on your right foot all day.

  2. The source is the UK Telegraph.

    The emails were not illegally obtained.

    The hoax is over.

  3. Even George Moonbat Monbiot admits there’s no spinning out of this one.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response

  4. Peterk says:

    philip the major US newscasts ABC/NBC/CBS are ignoring the story, took 6 days for CNN to report it
    Read this from the CBS blog
    http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml

    or this Washington Times editorial
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/27/the-global-cooling-cover-up/

    you may want to stroll on over to FNC considering how little is reported on the other news channels

  5. Doug says:

    I really like how they’re pushing the “illegally obtained” meme. Were the global warming/climate change/whatever pushers so concerned with illegality when the NY Times was constantly publishing leaked CIA info in an coordinated effort to undermine the Bush administration? I’m gonna guess that no, they weren’t. And will they be so concerned when, inevitably sometime in the future, the media once again publishes leaked information to undermine a Republican Prez? Think i’ll once again have to go with no.

  6. Philip Erwin says:

    I tend to veer away from listening to any of the main media leads since I figure they all have their own agenda’s to push anyway. I don’t need to go into any detail on the global warming issue since if you’re already bound to the idea that a global hoax is afoot, then I’m not going to convince you otherwise. It’s a pointless exercise for me to pursue a discussion of reason in this theater.

    http://www.desmogblog.com/hacked-emails-they-trouble-serious-trouble-not-big-trouble

    http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/cru-hack-science-crime-and-ethics/

  7. phillip j hubbell says:

    I believe the Pentagon Papers were illegally obtained…printed in the NY Times…now they say they won’t print these emails because of how they were obtained….no bias here.

  8. Dallasite says:

    Philip Erwin

    “The farce is in the notion that some illegally obtained emails have any evidence to indicate any kind of ‘game changer’. In fact, it has just gone to show that the scientists are just as human as the skeptics who challenge them.”

    No, Philip, it shows that they had to fabricate data because the real data didn’t support their agenda. They refused to submit their data to be analyzed by anyone who wasn’t part of their team. They violated the law in avoiding Freedom of Information Act requests because they knew the data didn’t match what they were publishing. They attempted to destroy information in violation of the law. They ignored the basic scientific method (as the skeptics have been saying for nearly two decades now.)

    Anyone who was skeptical was demonized, ridiculed, and sneered at for daring to ask questions.

    Now we see proof that those questions were justified, and it was the fearmongering climate change believers that should be ridiculed and sneered at. In fact, they should be prosecuted if it is shown that they took taxpayer dollars when they had knowledge of the fraud that was being committed.

  9. Philip Erwin says:

    What is Truth?
    http://www.wbcsd.org/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?type=DocDet&ObjectId=MzY2OTk

    I thought East Anglia was in Norwich.

    As much as I believe ‘skeptics’ views should be heard, the process for scientific review goes beyond a few ‘fearmongering’ climate change believers who ‘should be ridiculed and sneered at.’ This is the irrational aspect to this whole issue that I can never grasp – probably because I don’t watch Fox News. There are vast amounts of climate data to substantiate climate change – anthropogenic or otherwise. Many scientific skeptics accept there is climate change but they deny the anthropogenic causes. Fair enough! I’m one who believes that, being science, the answers are still to be resolved by searching the answers out – scientifically.

    Climate change is not a hoax simply because a senator, or Fox News, says it is or if someone thinks they have evidence (from a small batch of emails) to challenge it. Which gets to my point at the beginning of the day. Hoax? Really?? I’d say the ‘deniers’ better come up with better information than hacked emails from a scientific geek research lab if they want to refute global climate change. I try to keep an open mind on all things, but in the end, reason takes over and answers the questions for me. When it’s still on the line, I’ll jump to faith. Frankly, I have very little faith in Jim Inhofe.

    I have more reasons (billions, actually) to support the reasoning of climate scientists – in good conscience OR politically and industrially motivated – who are seeking answers than ‘deniers’ – in good conscience OR politically and industrially motivated – who are looking at different answers. In the process, they might try to explain a few global ‘coincidences’ like plant and animal migration, melting glaciers, global weather patterns, etc. By the way, the ‘demonizing’ has gone both ways which in some ways explains the biting attacks by the East Anglian community.

    In the end, I don’t see it makes much difference. I believe we will not be able to set enough limits to minimize our impact to anthropogenic climate change (if it is even possible AND if it exists) and we will still be forced to cope with the very real aspects of the impacts of peak oil, water and other global limitations – with or without global climate change. Sure, it may not be a significant problem for a few decades – if we’re lucky. But I tend to think a bit more long term than just my selfish little life.

  10. Dallasite says:

    “I’d say the ‘deniers’ better come up with better information than hacked emails from a scientific geek research lab if they want to refute global climate change.”

    Again, a resounding “no.” First, the CRU at the University of East Anglia is the premier climate research center in Britain, and the author of the most damning of emails is Phil Jones, the leading historical climate researcher on the planet. It is slightly more than a scientific geek research lab. They make policy recommendations that affect our economies and personal liberties.

    Second, it’s not up to the skeptics (which is a much better description than “deniers” which is intended to be insulting) to come up with better information, it’s up to the people who are making the outrageous claims that man is affecting global weather to produce a shred of proof.

    “I try to keep an open mind on all things, but in the end, reason takes over and answers the questions for me.”

    If you had a shred of “reason” you wouldn’t be attempting to diminish these emails, and would instead be calling for a full investigation of the facts. If the data is being doctored, I would think that a reasonable person would want to know.

    “When it’s still on the line, I’ll jump to faith.”

    I have a feeling that’s all it’s been all along.

    Destroying an economy based on faith is not good enough. Calling what the climate fearmongering industry has done “science” intellectual dishonesty at the very least. Instead of hiding behind FOI loopholes, they should be releasing all of their data for examination. Their models, which have been proven flawed repeatedly, and are even admitted to be so within their own emails, should be completely re-evaluated by unbiased scientists to see if they have any validity whatsoever. Until then, the entire claim that man is destroying the environment via climate change is nothing but a sad, and very expensive, joke.

  11. amanda says:

    Phillip…

    “There are vast amounts of climate data to substantiate climate change – anthropogenic or otherwise.”

    Yeah, like Greenland used to be green before a bunch of hipsters needed the Prius to drive to the mall to get Fair Trade CFLs. Wake up; it was a hoax, a fabricated manipulation of international public policy. Let it go. Holding on like it has any level of credibility when actual tested science says otherwise is d-baggy.

    “In the process, they might try to explain a few global ‘coincidences’ like plant and animal migration, melting glaciers, global weather patterns, etc.”

    Seriously? Look, animals have legs and wings, and sometimes they move. It’s natural, normal even. Glaciers have melted and re-formed before, and guess what? It’s going to happen again, and again, and there’s nothing Phillip can do about it. Terrible storms happen, water heats up, and tsunamis and hurricanes kill people. It’s sad, yes, but it’s a natural occurrence. Even in less industrialized countries, more and more people choose to live near the water, and as long as people live in coastal regions, these storms are going to impact humanity. For all we know, we are in a 500 or 1000 year weather pattern (see Greenland above). Falsifying science doesn’t make the theories more credible. It’s a massive fraud. Own it, and move forward.

    “I believe we will not be able to set enough limits to minimize our impact to anthropogenic climate change (if it is even possible AND if it exists) and we will still be forced to cope with the very real aspects of the impacts of peak oil, water and other global limitations – with or without global climate change. Sure, it may not be a significant problem for a few decades – if we’re lucky.”

    And my favorite: “But I tend to think a bit more long term than just my selfish little life.”

    Guess what? Other people are waaaaay ahead of you. Just like adaptation of wildlife, and the anthropologic changes you hang your hat on, when “we” as a planet run out of oil, we will adapt. Don’t kid yourself. There are scientists all over this planet working on it right now. Of course, the previous hoax, The Evils of Nuclear Power has more than one hippie scratching their tiny little heads… Regardless of the mode/method, rest assured business and commerce will move ahead in the free markets, even if there’s no more oil. I guarantee it.

    As to your own “selfish little life.” See, this is where I feel bad for you. You bought the whole climate change/green lifestyle thing lock, stock, and barrel. Man = bad. Man is destroying the earth. Man has no right to exist and is ruining everything. So, admit it…you felt good about yourself when you recycled, and strained your little eyes waiting for your CFLs to warm up. You felt good about minimizing your carbon foot print, because somewhere along the line, the pushers of this fraud told you, Phillip, that you basically had no right to exist. Phillip needed to trade a fake commodity (carbon credits) for the right to exist. Well, guess what? You do. You have the right to live. So do I. So do the billions of people on this planet.

    That doesn’t mean we have carte blanche to abuse natural resources, but, Phillip it isn’t selfish for you to live and have advantages from those natural resources. And, in case you haven’t noticed, life is uncertain by nature, and complicated enough without imposing on future generations myriad of asinine lifestyle restrictions that further a hoax. So, for crying out loud, relax.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Someone should tell those stupid fucking glaciers to stop melting.

  13. Philip Erwin says:

    Amanda,
    It’s Thanksgiving and time to mellow. I think you completely misread me. If it was simple to just leave things out as a ‘hoax’, I wouldn’t be having this conversation. You tell me of ‘a massive fraud’ and then I should just accept that to be true and get on with my life. Frankly, my life hasn’t changed a bit except for being more annoyed by people telling me one thing or the other from two different sides and telling me that’s gospel.

    Again, I go back to something you said… ‘for all we know.’ This is all about scientific discovery that is ongoing and for anyone to dismiss the evidence to date as fraud is a bit presumptuous. We continue to learn.

    By the way, just what are they teaching you folks at ‘denier’ camp? Life is grand, I barely recycle, and no man can tell me I have no right to exist – or to seek for a quality life for those to follow after me. This is about freedom and choices.

    It’s really simple: it’s not about me, it about my nieces and nephews and their children. If I feel there is the potential for harm to them from decisions we make today, I will continue to explore the issues and not let down my guard to people who are willing to stay the course of over-use of our natural resources. There are still too many questions, don’t be so quick in thinking you have all of the answers. You won’t be alert when they do arrive.

  14. Doug says:

    This is all about scientific discovery that is ongoing and for anyone to dismiss the evidence to date as fraud is a bit presumptuous. We continue to learn.

    No, it’s not. The “science” that you cling to has been rigged. That’s what the e-mails show. The scientists you look up to have been lying to you and picking and choosing their data to get the result they want while going on witch hunts for other scientists who dared question them.

    And really, stop presenting yourself as open minded when you spend most of your time whining about Fox News and “deniers”. Global warming/climate change/whatever chicken littles like you have been the closed minded crowd, does “the science is settled and the debate is over” ring a bell?

    And this -

    It’s really simple: it’s not about me, it about my nieces and nephews and their children.

    Don’t do that. People will just laugh at you andrightly so, Maude Flanders.

  15. Philip Erwin says:

    Well, in for a penny….

    If you really think that Fox News is presenting anything in a fair and balanced approach on ANY argument, then it speaks more dastardly to your viewpoint than mine. If you want to start reading the research (and the researchers) instead of listening to politically bent viewpoints on these issues, then do so. Don’t be so gullible to one side or the other. I’ll do the same. I think I just previously stated that the science is NOT settled. I also don’t hold to any mainstream media because there’s always a speck of truth that gets missed. Sure, scientists aren’t pure and have continually been attacked for their research – on both sides of the issue. They should not retaliate and should have taken the high road. But there hasn’t been anything shown to refute any climate evidence – just poor judgment. My opinion is that all sides should be heard on an equal field – let the evidence hold up or not. One point of view is that you can’t ‘rig’ bad science, which they say they were working to keep out of the mainstream. Bad idea? Sure. Air it out.

    Also, please excuse me if I regard the welfare of future generations with some concern. It might have been funny at one time, but I think the looming threats to our world’s resources – and their impacts to those who follow us – is not something to mock. That, too, speaks more poorly of your viewpoint than mine.

  16. Dallasite says:

    “Don’t be so gullible to one side or the other. I’ll do the same.”

    and

    “Also, please excuse me if I regard the welfare of future generations with some concern.”

    So your mind isn’t made up, but you’re all for believing it anyway, right?

    I’ve got a bridge for sale in Arizona. You’ll love it. It’s a “green” bridge. It runs on solar power, and it is made from 100% recycled materials. Better hurry though, I’ve got a long line of people who are interested.

  17. Dallasite says:

    I especially love how you threw in the “future generations” line. Are you so unsure of your logical argument that you have to throw in the emotional one? I’m actually surprised that you didn’t just say “What about the children?!?” it would have to same effect.

    Here’s a logical question: would those future generations rather live in a slightly warmer planet where there is more food available and less illness, or a slightly cleaner and cooler planet, but in abject poverty because of the horrible laws passed in order to “save the planet.”

  18. Philip Erwin says:

    I’m understanding more and more of the reasoning behind the actions of the climate scientists. It’s apparent there is a lack of understanding of primary economics and the migration of illnesses. When this form of logic is put forward as credible science, it undermines the whole process and the scientists get in trouble for trying to bar it.

    The planet doesn’t need saving. We do. Have a good day.

  19. amanda says:

    Phil…so, this is about your nieces and nephews and their children, huh? I’ll see you that and raise you the fact a child actually passed through my vagina into this cursed world. So, you know, I have an actual daily reminder of the importance of this…what’s the word? Stuff.

    I don’t have the luxury of living for my own selfish little self. See, I have to put her needs first until she’s all growed up (or takes up with some biker dude), which ever comes first.

    Thanks for your tip to “mellow,” but see, when a handful of agenda driven liars ramps up a hoax that has global impact, well, gee…it pisses me off. I have to do silly little things like instill honor and integrity in my daughter, and this issue is a very clear snapshot of exactly what’s wrong with this world.

    Do you often have a problem admitting you’re wrong? It doesn’t mean you’re bad or stupid, just wrong. What makes people in your situation look bad and stupid is when they won’t admit it, and they want to complain about the messenger.

    And, if you don’t like Fox News, don’t watch it. It’s really simple. I get news from dozens of sources every day. The biggest problem you’ve got? The Onion looks credible when you accept the myth of climate change.

  20. Philip Erwin says:

    The following is from my blog at Dallas Trees this morning…. You folks had an impact on me.

    “Frankly, I had a run in with some commentators this weekend at Trey Garrison’s site that had me re-thinking and considering my position. People are hurt by what they perceive as a complete failure in our culture to uphold ‘integrity’ and ‘honor’. I agree and it is extremely painful. The differences I had with each of them was that they were ready to consider all of the work of all climate scientists -skeptic and not – to be crap and to declare this whole climate change issue a hoax. I believe integrity and honor can still be upheld – and will be – but not by these few, not by the politicians (on both sides of this issue) and not by the closed-minded. Am I wrong for not believing climate change is a hoax? I believe not. I need only to look at the evidence. I cannot convince anyone of anything – I can only continue to present the evidence – pro and con – as it comes forward. In science, the truth will root itself out.

    I cannot admit something is wrong if I don’t believe it to be so. Are there elements that have been falsified? It appears so. Does it negate climate change? No. Is it absolutely a negative to humanity? Time will tell. Even some of the most strident skeptics to the IPCC climate data know that climate change is occurring. The doubt is in how it is caused (above and beyond CO2) and the effects it will have on us (ocean acidification is scarier than warmer temperatures). There is still so much to learn – that will not be found out by stating it is a hoax.

  21. Dallasite says:

    This just keeps getting better. Yesterday the CRU issued a statement:

    “In a statement welcomed by climate change sceptics, the university said it would make all the data accessible as soon as possible, once its Climatic Research Unit (CRU) had negotiated its release from a range of non-publication agreements.”

    http://tinyurl.com/ya4qvb9

    This is something that skeptics have been asking for for over 15 years now. Finally, the scientists in charge of publishing the studies that are being treated as gospel are going to release the raw data those studies relied on, right?

    “SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

    It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.”

    http://tinyurl.com/yzvyoxh

    Whoops…

    So these scientists have not only withheld the basic information from anyone who might want to review their conclusions, they are now claiming that the raw data, data upon which the entire theory is based upon, was discarded during a move in order to save space.

    “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

    I think I’m going to go punch an environmentalist in the face now.

  22. Dallasite says:

    On the way to punch an environmentalist, I found this beauty:

    http://www.detnews.com/article/20091127/OPINION03/911270333/1031

    Phil Jones, the lead researcher who stated in one of the emails:

    “I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”

    Well, it seems he has received $22.6 million in grants since 1990. Selfish indeed.

  23. amanda says:

    Oh, and Phil?

    Did it escape you that this entire hoax was promoted to levy a global tax on primarily the US and UK? And that the UN would be responsible for the tax revenues? Because the corrupt war lords in the third world need a few more Bentleys…

    Just let your brain chew on that for a while. The US, UK, and other western civilized nations, even though we already pay insane amounts of foreign aid, will pay even more to offset the alleged carbon contribution our prosperity contributes to “climate change.”

    That’s one way to level the playing field.

  24. Frank R says:

    Phil Erwin, as someone who NEVER watches Fox News or Fox Network, I take extreme exception to your comments. I’ve followed this issue for over 10 years and read a considerable of the argument from both sides.

    You state: “This is all about scientific discovery that is ongoing and for anyone to dismiss the evidence to date as fraud is a bit presumptuous.”
    What evidence are you talking about? That the climate is changing? It always has and will continue to do so. Man’s paltry contribution of CO2, less than 5% of ALL CO2 is not near enough to cause the climate to change. Explain to me how the global climate models which are mathematical constructs attempting to replicate a choatic system can consistently fail to match observed climate, but can predict 100 years into the future. How can these same models not understand water vapor, which makes up over 90% of the greenhouse gases, even begin to be accurate. This last bit is stated in the IPCC reports. Read it for yourself.
    Although you say you have billions of reasons for supporting AGW, your posts are more telling. You have looked at the change about you and have found an explanation with which you are comfortable. That’s not science. That is faith.

  25. Philip Erwin says:

    As I sign off this discussion for the weekend, let me just say that the world is one complex system of actions that doesn’t need me or anyone else to infer anything. The world is constantly changing. The questions are still open as to how humanity copes – in regional if not in global scales – with these changes. I certainly believe that AGW is apparent but possibly not in the limited vision of the IPCC.

    I don’t intend to infer that anyone who disagrees with AGW is a Fox News hound. There are many brilliant minds out there working on these issues who have differing points of view – which is the main point to this whole discussion in the first place. If you’re going to settle into a simplistic POV – for whatever reason – at this point of the process (as the world continues to change) then you do yourself and everyone else a disservice.

    The natural world does not move by global taxes – only people and governments do that. If global warming, or climate change, was simply a matter of who controls what pocketbook, then I’d probably be up in arms about these issues myself. As it is, I’m more interested in learning about where the world is going – how to improve on how we can project for the future – and to plan accurately. If that means we make certain sacrifices, we better be figuring out what those are. If not, then so be it.

    My posts probably don’t reveal much about myself other than how little I do know. I admit that openly. That’s why I’m working to present information. Now, I’m working to do it better and more fairly. If you think you know full well how this world system works, then you’re deceiving yourself. As much as we do know, we are continually learning and growing. If you can stand on the fact that what is being presented is a hoax, more power to you. I’m pleased that the gods have rained that insight down upon you. For the science that does exist, I try to learn and understand. None of it is comfortable. My opinions are constantly being massaged by the information I take in. That’s someplace else I’m trying to improve – news sources. As to where it is all going, what have we but faith? I’m human, not a god.

    In the end, the ‘billions’ I was referring to are people who are, and will be, trying to make their way on this world just to survive. We have many other problems sitting on our doorstep in the coming decades than just climate change. Of course, you may not believe in the notion of peak oil, water shortages, population increases, famine, disease, etc. etc. You shouldn’t feel so offended by my statements and just consider me one more person trying to understand all of these processes and not jump to conclusions before the race has even begun.

    This is just the beginning….

  26. joker's wild says:

    Philip E-

    I can appreciate how you simply want research to continue and the “real truth” to come out. And if this were some sort of largely intellectual scientific exercise (Is there life in other solar sysytems? for instance), there wouldn’t be nearly the level of vitriol being spewed on both sides of the issue.

    But I think you’re missing the point. The strategy of the AGW proponents is not only to attempt to prove that that the phenomenon exists BUT ALSO to institute radical, immediate changes worldwide that will affect the pocketbooks and lifestyles of every company and human in the world. To achieve the latter goal, AGWers frame their science into doomsday scenarios and implicitly demonize anyone who disagrees with them. (And they can’t even agree when the so-called “tipping point” occurs. I’ve read at least one scientist’s opinion that it has already passed.) Add to this the question whether any of these drastic changes will actually work, and you can see why this entire debate has been emotionalized even before the current email scandal came to light.

    Truthfully, I believe if more AGW “believers” took the “wait and see where the science leads us” attitude like you do, then much of the hatred in this debate would vanish. But since the acceptance of AGW theories is invariably tied to the drastic change modus operandi, I think that most discussions of the issue will tend to mirror the one in this thread.

  27. Frank R says:

    Phil E, it’s a bit disingenuous to suggest that those who view the climate as an always changing system have accepted an simplistic explanation. On the contrary, one of my initial objections to the notion of AGW was it’s simplicity, CO2 goes up, temperature goes up. The climate is not that simple. It is a chaotic system. That is, it is made up of many variables each interacting with the other producing unpredictable results. It is a non linear system. Indeed chaos science was initially conceived to help predict short term weather. The work on climate science should continue, no question. As one of the researchers admitted in the e-mails released, they don’t know what is going on. So, to joker’s wild’s point, first do no harm.

    You mention the billions of people around the world who have needs. That is true. So, why are we going to spend trillions on attempting to limit something which even the proponents aren’t sure can be limited? You might want to read Bjorn Lomberg on this issue. He is a believer in AGW, but also will put into black and white numbers why trying to prevent it as we are is a waste of resources.

  28. amanda says:

    Phil: get ahold of yourself.

    First we had the Hillary-esque “for the children” closing, now this ominous warning…”This is only the beginning…”

    Of what? The peak oil, disease, famine, over population Kool-Aid your drinking?

    Peak oil may be looming, but so is innovation. The human immune system continues to amaze medical reserchers. Modern famines are tied to the actions of governments, not climate. And over-population: there you go with that guilt over who has the right to live again. You and your circular arguments make me tired.

    Get out there on the world wide inter-tubes and get a little education on how things really work, not just how a handful of folks see it. And, while you’re at it, dip your toes in some free market thought, and a little economics. It’ll to you good.

  29. Frank R says:

    Is the world flat or round?

    The world appears flat to those with no vision of hope and ability. Those who find fault in most human endeavors predict disaster beyond the line on the horizon. For them man is a blight on the planet rather. They voice a mantra of despair.

    The world remains round for those with faith and trust in man’s unbridled ability. They cast a glance on the world and see not what man has destroyed, but what man has created. For them the possibilities, like a circle or the round earth, are infinite.

  30. Daniel W. says:

    I think a lot of people fail to understand that the question isn’t whether there is climate change, but whether climate change is MAN MADE.

    The fact is that there is absolutely NO evidence that man has in any way caused (or will cause) ANY change whatsoever in the climate. NONE.

    The very first “hockey stick” graphs which were THE proof, turned out to have been faked – but the movement had already begun and was spreading, and grant money was being given, and no amount of fraud exposed or facts presented could turn the tide.

    In addition to these emails (which showed a ‘conspiracy’ to squelch presentation of facts and discussion of views that did not support man made global warming), it is common to find that reports supporting MMGW had data that was massaged to fit the theory, and other data removed if it worked against the theory.

    Such stories are not new – this has been happening consistently for years. Look at another story released this week – New Zealand’s CRU put out another of the ‘hockey stick’ charts supporting MMGW, one that has been long accepted as ‘gospel’. And when others want to fact check them because things don’t seem to add up, they reveal that their core samples as well as initial written evidence were all destroyed – they kept no record, so their work can’t be checked and subjected to scientific review. They committed what is a cardinal sin in the scientific world, and yet none of the MMGW supporters think it matters. I’d wager they would care if the data had been destroyed in such a manner for research supposedly proving there WAS NO MMGW.

    And then we have the fact that the people pushing the MMGW theory are making money hand over fist for it. Al Gore? Now a billionaire. The scientists who push the theory? Getting tons of research money, while none is given to researches who DON’T support MMGW. If this were happening for anything but MMGW, it would have raised red flags in the minds of journalists and the public – but it fits in with their existing political leanings, so there are in large part no questions.

    I am very much interested in protecting the environment and not further contaminating this world. Our Earth has an amazing ability to heal, clean and thrive – but we should never abuse it. Despite my protective feelings about the environment, I absolutely do NOT approve of this disgusting & dishonest scam that has been foisted on our children in school, our businesses, our public in general.

    The double standards, intellectual dishonesty, gullibility, and constant ‘oh that’s just what brainwashed FOX NEWS viewers think’ type comments” are deplorable, and should be embarassing to the Kool-Aid drinkers.

  31. Frank R says:

    In the end the real damage is that done to science. Too little science has been taught in schools already. I learned the steps of the scientific method early. I doubt that many high schoolers today could even tell you. The science challenged media adds to the problem. They report every statistical study as if it were a double blind experiment to determine cause and effect. Most reporters don’t even a fundamental grasp of statistics either. According to Dr. Edward Wegmann, who was commissioned by Congress to determine the veracity of Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph, the knowledge of statistics held by Mann and his coharts is sorely lacking. (Wegmann found that the infamous graph was inaccurate. Nevertheless, Mann continued to defend it. Now we know that he cherry picked the data and massaged the temperatures.)

    Obama should denounce this mess and use his pulpit to call for a renewed emphasis on science in our schools. After all, his was the administration that was going to make decisions based on science. Sadly, he won’t. It’s not in his interest, nor is he interested.

  32. Doug says:
  33. BearTM says:

    Bernie Madoff is weeping that he didn’t come up with the AGW scam….