The Man-Made Climate Change Hoax, By the Numbers

global_warming_hoax_button-p145048047397663977t5sj_400Courtesy Ed Morrissey, here’s a roundup of how the “settled science” behind anthropogenic climate change has been torn down, exposing that it’s nothing more than hoax designed to steer power and funding towards the very people sounding the alarms.

He writes:

In the past four months, media outlets like the Times of London, the Telegraph, the Australian Herald-Sun, and even the Left-leaning paper The Guardian have broken important stories (along with bloggers) exposing the fraud, mismanagement, and unscientific behavior of the core group of AGW advocates:


  1. Phillip J Hubbell says:

    You have to admit for the left to figure out a way to blame the right for the weather was pretty brilliant. It was nearly perfect…no matter what happened, they could point to the industrialized countries’ political right and claim that their policies and activities were destroying the earth. And of course they could count on a large segment of the population who would be dumb enough to believe anything they were told.

  2. Bravo says:

    Cracking work, Garrison!

  3. Tim R. says:

    Okay, so you get all your citations from a single website with a stated “right-wing agenda, ran by none other than Michelle Malkin and it’ supposed to be persuasive?

    It really makes me suspicious of the credibility when you can’t find better sourced material than a known right-wing windbag who makes no secret of having an anti-intellectual agenda and who aslo wants to advocate for corporate interests.

    Science isn’t about pursuing political agendas–it’s about pursuing the facts.

    National Enquirer type advocacy is not going to persuade anyone but the already persuaded.

  4. Tim R. says:

    Oh I almost forgot. Malkin sold the website that’s the source of all your citations to: Salem Communications Company – a Christian Media company.

    I dare say the agenda is out of the bag.

  5. Those who can’t argue the message flail impotently at the medium.

  6. Tim R. says:

    Problem is: The message is wrong and it can be traced to failing to let go of a faulty premise and instead relying on a confirmation bias to guide the search for validating sources.

    Thus, you cite a source without any credibility because it fits preconception rather than the facts.

  7. Hold on tight to those religious beliefs, Tim. Don’t let evidence shake your faith!

  8. LOL says:

    An AGW whackaloon accusing someone else of cherry picking sources to push an agenda. LMAO.

  9. Tim R. says:

    I’ll note you haven’t addressed my point and instead have regressed to ad hominem.

    You’re way out in orbit on this one and attempts at humor at my expense doesn’t excuse your failure to cite reliable sources, nor does it help your agenda when you refuse to acknowledge the weaknesses in your position.

    Again, I refer you to:

    For a good explanation of how you are putting your ignorance of science on display through your dogged adherence to an agenda-driven position.

  10. More... says:

    Head of ‘Climategate’ research unit admits sending ‘pretty awful emails’ to hide data

  11. Dallasite says:


    The reason no one is taking you seriously is because the blog you are referring to provides links to mainstream media sources to back up each claim. So when the claim is made that the CRU decided to conveniently lose all of the underlying data that should back up their claims, it isn’t from a blog, it’s from The Times of London. Absolutely nothing is more unscientific than to destroy and purposely try to hide data so that your findings cannot be reproduced.

    You on the other hand link to a pro-alarmist blog to support your religious beliefs, right after condemning Trey for linking to a… blog.

    Keep trying though, we might stop laughing long enough to take you seriously. No really, we might. I promise.

  12. Tim R. says:

    To More…says: Did you actually read the article you posted? Nowhere in it does it say he “sent emails to hide data.” In fact he denied doing that.

    Obfuscation, quoting out of context, ad hominem, etc. Sophistry designed to ignore the facts and push an agenda. Socrates railed against such techniques, but apparently it’s okay in the service of pushing BS?

    You can believe what you want, but don’t try to tell me the world is flat and don’t try to convince me that a conspiracy is afoot, unless it’s in your own mind. Conpsiracies are best left to the X-Files; that show was cancelled the last time I checked.

    Scientists don’t sit around in a cave coming up with ways to pull the wool over people’s eyes to advance their agenda. That’s what ideologues and politicians do.

  13. Tim R. says:

    To Dallassite: You are joking right? Because when I hit the link button above it takes me to

    So is this another point of obfuscation or are your really ignoring the link and its source?

    I won’t even respond to your claim of “pro-alarmist” site except to say that the science stands on its own without my help. Your failure to understand it is of no concern of mine, except when you try to convince others that the the sky is somehow green when in fact it’s blue or up is down.

    Just because you choose to believe or advocate a position without any basis in reality or fact, doesn’t mean that anyone calling you out on it is somehow corrupted by an agenda–except maybe an agenda to cut through the BS your selling.

    Laugh at me all you want–it doesn’t change the facts nor does it advance your agenda in the least.

  14. Tim R. says:

    To More..: You’re seriously quoting a source whose recent headline speaks of Obama readying troops for a civil war that’s to break out in the U.S.?

    Now I know you’re not to be taken seriously.

    I’d like to refer you to a little law known as: Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385) that prohibits U.S. troops from being used inside the U.S., except to repel an invading force. Who’s invading? The Canadians? The Bahamians? Please.

    These conspiracies are laughable and downright inane. They speak more to your paranoia than reality.

  15. Unfortunate says:

    Tim R has written over 500 words in the comments section of some tiny blog desperately defending the fairy tale of anthropogenic global warming.

    Is it possible that he is mentally ill, an obsessed fanatic so conditioned by leftist propaganda that he interprets any doubt about AGW as a personal attack?

    Write more, please, little Timmy. You amuse us so. :)

  16. More... says:

    Your ignorance astounds.

    The US military is routinely deployed in the United States, as in Samson, Alabama in March 2009.

    Posse Comitatus is a dead letter. As in Samson, the soldiers are deployed, some official is outraged, an investigation is promised, and the whole matter is swept under the rug.

  17. Tim R. says:

    “Resort is had to ridicule when reason is against us.” Thomas Jefferson.

    As yet I’ve not resorted to name-calling and ad hominem. No one who has responded to my comments has resorted to facts to support their claims, instead relying on invective and ridicule.

    I dare say you’re quite ignorant of what a true “leftist” is if you assume that I am one. Not all who despise conspiracy theories is a leftist and not all who disagree with you are “leftists.” That shows a serious lack of imagination on your part.

    Attempts to belittle me or pat me on the head by calling me “Timmy” are entertaining, but ignore my points.

    Why is that?

    I guess it’s easier than presenting facts when maligning the messenger allows you to sidestep reality?

    Hmm, sounds like someone is out of their intellectual depth or just willfully ignorant. Either way it’s difficult to take seriously.

    I suppose it is “Unfortunate” that the clue you’ve failed to get is still so obviously eluding you, when its right in front of your face.

    So to present it in plain language: “Climategate” does not invalidate the wealth of data and science pointing toward climate change.

  18. Unfortunate says:

    Very good, Timmy. According to, your post was 203 words.

    You are regurgitating exactly what has been shoved into your brain by your liberal blogs, your liberal television, your liberal friends, and your liberal web sites.

    Good boy! :)

  19. Tim R. says:

    Of course you realize that repeating something over and over doesn’t give it more weight. That’s known as an ad nausea argument – to the point of making people sick of the broken-record nature of your thinking.

    I suppose you’ve completely accounted for your own confirmation bias in your thinking? Or, is that too much to expect?

    As someone who’s paid to “think” for a living, and one who’s paid to exercise critical thinking skills daily, I’ll ignore you baiting, since it does nothing to advance your case and underscores my previous points.

  20. Unfortunate says:

    Yes, yes, Timmy, you’re a good person.

    Now, run off and watch some CNN dreck, then maybe head over to Kos, then come back here and post what you’ve absorbed as though it’s actually original thinking on your part. I’ll wait. :)

  21. Daniel says:

    I generally avoid the topic of climate change, because I hold ambivalent and conflicting opinions.* (This could make me an unbiased and reasonable correspondent, but where’s the fun in that, I ask?)

    However, I just had to chime in to point out that Unfortunate loses. And insists on losing again. And again.

    Very good, Unfortunatey!

    * True of healthcare reform, too. And immigration. Also, abortion — I’m pro-choice, albeit with misgivings. But hey, enough about me. Let’s proceed to gloat at someone else’s flailings, shall we!

  22. Anonymous says:

    “Those who can’t argue the message flail impotently at the medium.”


  23. Frank R says:

    “Of course you realize that repeating something over and over doesn’t give it more weight. ”

    I happen to agree with that statement. Yet for the past 20 years this is precisely what the global warming community has been doing. Any weather event, hot or cold, has been the direct result of man made global warming according to their claims. Yes, they point to peer reviewed research as the gold standard. At the same time Mann and others have been working behind the scenes to corrupt the peer review process. This has been born out by difficulties Roy Spencer and Svensmark, to name two, have had in getting their material published.

    Phil Jones did not admit in the interview that he was trying to destroy files. It is clear, however, to anyone who reads the e-mail chain that this was his intent in gathering the files together on the public server.

    The AGW crowd likes to point to the weight of evidence behind their claims, citing peer reviewed research. The “studies,” however, are based on the output of the computer models. These models have never been able to match observed climate, even after repeated tweeks. In a very real sense the climate change activists are more like the established Aristotileans during Galileo’s day than they are like Galileo, who based his conclusions on research and observation. His experiment on the tower of Pisa is a prime example.

    Further, we have not seen the kind of run up in temperatures predicted by the models. Not even close. This should raise significant questions as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has continued to rise. Yet what we are told is that the natural forces are in temporary control. The heat is storing up and will be released in force in some 10 or 15 years.

    There are those who wish to make this a left/right issue. It isn’t. It’s about the science. Unfortunately, we know there has been a lot of bad science being practiced to support this issue. I’ve read and followed this issue since the Kyoto Protocols were issued. The science behind the issue has proven weaker with each passing year. One thing I’ve noted is the tenor of the argument from the AGW side. For many years, Roger Pielke Sr. kept a blog on which papers were posted and discussion was allowed. Those still can be accessed today. The link is below. The comments from the AGW side were almost always aggressive, sarcastic and veering towards personal attacks, often disregarding the science altogether. The skeptics tended towards a discussion of the issues and the science. I found this to be true as well on Steve McIntyre’s website, Climate Audit. You might also look at Anthony Watts’ site, What’s up with that.

    Here are a few links for TimR is he is interested in the science rather than the headlines. I’ve including a link to Roger Pielke Jr’s website in which he discusses peer review. Neither Pielke Sr. or Jr, are strict skeptics when it comes to CO2 and its impact. Yet they have been called out and attacked by the AGW community.

  24. Tim R. says:

    Wow. I’m duly chastened by such a stunningly brilliant response….shut me right up with its detail and logical sufficiency.

  25. Phillip J Hubbell says:

    I don’t much care if global warming is happening. I doubt the catastrophic nature of the claimed effects. Also the people who worship at the altar of climate change seem to think that the solution is to dismantle capitalism and impose government control of everything. I would rather die on a burned out cinder in space than live in the world envisioned by these creeps. I think that if man made global warming is really a serious issue it would be the innovation coming from capitalism and free markets that would more likely come up with a solution. Growing government to the point where they have the power to tell us what kind of toilet we can have and what kind of light bulbs we can use isn’t a workable solution anyway. We will simply get tired of their twaddle and shoot them. Figure out a way to save the planet by greating wealth, enhancing liberty and reducing regulation and taxation and it will take care of itself. Otherwise….I will be barbequing on Earth Day.

  26. Tim R. says:

    My last comment was directed at Unfortunate, so there’s no confusion.

    As to the “Science” and not the headlines Frank R. refers to: I read the science. I’m a science-consumer in my work. I have a background in science and I teach science and the proper use of science and critical thinking.

    Your assumptions about my ignorance are unfounded and unsubstantiated.

    This whole thread started because I questioned the credibility of the so-called headlines cited in the underlying post. It’s ironic that you’d accuse me of the very thing that started this thread.

    What I’ve detected in all this is a tendency for those who disagree with the “science” to paint those who actually read the science and understand it as being part of some vast left-wing conspiracy to lie to the public.

    That is the “up with which I will not put.” It’s a complete misrepresentation and it falsely labels those of us who are consumers of science as being ideologically-driven when the true culprits are those who perpetuate conspiracies about cabals of scientists deliberately deceiving the public.

    That’s baloney — if you believe that, I got some soap to sell you.

    Science isn’t cut and dried. It doesn’t fit neatly into nice little boxes that so many wish force it into. Certainty is not assured in science–only the process.

  27. Unfortunate says:

    Of course your are objective, Tim R.

    Let’s go to your site and see what we can find. :)

    “John Boehner is a lying sack of shit.”

    “Obama and his team look reasonable and industrious while working for the greater good. The Republicans look like partisan hacks who are only in it for advantage, but really offer nothing substantive to the debate.”

    “As a lifelong Democrat ….”

    Your objectivity explodes off the page. :)

  28. Unfortunate says:

    By the way Trey, are congratulations appropriate for your new site look?

  29. Unfortunate, thanks — it’s transitional. Want to find the right design, but I haven’t had time. So we went with the cleanest skin we could. The old one just screamed 2007.

  30. Frank R says:

    Tim R, I don’t accuse those who buy into the AGW theory as being of any particular political bent. My issue is with the fact that so many see this as a political issue and take sides accordingly. What’s really offensive is the notion that those skeptical of AGW are flat earthers, worship at the altar of intelligent design or are in the pay of oil companies (the AGW version of a vast right wing conspiracy). Nothing could be further from the truth from many who are skeptics. I find it equally objectionable that those promoting the notion the man’s CO2 contribution drives climate change have chosen to label skeptics “deniers,” with the very intended implication that their scientific beliefs are heretical. Heresy has no place in science.

    As for grand conspiracies, I am no fan of such notions. I do, however, believe that there is ample evidence that those scientists who have been most aggressive in promoting the notion of a human induced climate change, have put self interest ahead of science. Comments by Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt, for example, on Mann’s Real Climate website discussions reflect an disdain for those who question their methods and results. Schmidt used to be a regular commenter on Pielke Sr’s website as well. He was just as dismissive and pugnacious in his posts on that site, even while others who agreed with him managed civility in pressing their views. James Hansen has gone from doomsday predictions to publicly advocating vandalism as a method to fight the evils of CO2 emissions.

    I agree that science is not always cut and dried. I also agree that the only thing assured is the process which makes me wonder all the more about those promoting the AGW viewpoint. How many good scientist, indeed good engineers, lose original data on which they base their conclusions? Even Einstein was generous enough to share all of his data with any scientist who wanted to test his results. Yet, Michael Mann was persistently evasive in allowing McIntyre and McKitrick access to the necessary data. And now the authorities in the UK have stated that the Hadley CRU was officially in violation of the Freedom of Information Act for withholding climate data. Is this science? I am not talking about politics. I am talking about process.

    The science itself is highly questionable. Dendrology is far from exact and the assumptions about tree ring growth are highly questionable. Growth does not respond only to temperature. It has far more to do with the least available resource. As for the statistical models that produced the hockey stick, Dr. Wegmann was particularly critical of Mann’s statistical methodology in his report to Congress. Do I need to mention the problems with the weather stations reporting historical temperature? How about the positive feedbacks that seem to exist in no place but the models.

    Each of the original bullets cited above address the methodology, the conclusions or perhaps the less than ethical actions of people who adhere to the AGW theory. Yet your first comment was: “Okay, so you get all your citations from a single website with a stated “right-wing agenda, ran by none other than Michelle Malkin and it’ supposed to be persuasive?” Aren’t you doing exactly what you say you won’t “up with put?”

  31. amanda says:

    I feel like I just gave birth again after reading this thread.

  32. Tim R. says:

    Unfortunate: Again with the out of context quotes. And also the straw men.

    You forgot to mention that I also said Henry Waxman was “no Mr. personality” and that Jim Cooper “does not take a good picture.

    Rule of completion: If you’re gonna quote the stuff that supports your position, also be intellectually honest enough to quote the stuff that doesn’t. Find me evidence that indicates my allegation against Boehner was wrong.

    You also failed to note that neither Republicans and Democrats have a lock on objectivity.

    Furthermore, I never once claimed to be a paragon of objectivity, just that when it comes down to picking a side to be on as it pertains to science, where journalists with an agenda are on one side and the vast majority of scientists are on the other–I’m sticking with the scientists every time.

  33. CJ says:

    @Tim R.

    “Vast majority” of scientists? Really?

    You’re employing the same tactics as the U.S. mainstream media when they constantly print the unsubstantiated, boiler-plate phrase “overwhelming consensus” when referring to hte AGW propaganda.

    Here’s a link that erodes that line of reasoning:

    It’s a story written way back in 2008 about how 31,000 American scientists signed a petition disputing the so-called “overwhelming consensus” view of AGW. Remember, this was before all the recent developments cited in Trey’s column. So to imply that the “vast majority” of scientists toe the AGW line is ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst.

    BTW – there’s a reason why you’re seeing the actual FACTS about AGW on nontraditional websites and from foreign news sources: the U.S. mainstream media has no interest in reporting these stories, which go against their left-leaning agenda.

    And you call yourself a “science-consumer?” Not a good one, obviously. If you truly are, you would know that science is constantly changing in EVERY arena (or do you still teach your students that Pluto is a planet?). To say or imply that the science of AGW is settled and an unassailable truth flies in the faith of scientific principles – or maybe it’s just plain closed-minded and agenda-driven. I don’t know.

    Here’s what I DO know: when the students in your classes grow up and get to be yor age, they’re gonna look back and laugh at how their dumbass science teacher tried to convince them that mankind was warming the planet into destruction. But you’ll probably still believe it, won’t you?

  34. Frank R says:

    “Furthermore, I never once claimed to be a paragon of objectivity, just that when it comes down to picking a side to be on as it pertains to science, where journalists with an agenda are on one side and the vast majority of scientists are on the other.. . . .”

    Actually the journalist with an agenda, by an enormous margin, have been on the side of the relative handful of scientists who have pushed the notion of AGW. The journalists have slavishly reported each dire prediction and study as if it were writ in stone. Even the scientists who reviewed material for the IPCC did not all agree with the conclusions of the UN body. Many objected. Read the comments section of the IPCC reviews for more information.

    As for the science involved, in order for it to be true science the theory must be framed as a falsifiable hypothesis. That is hardly the case with AGW as all climatic changes are attributable to AGW.

  35. Frank R says:

    BTW Sorry for the long and tedious posts amanda.

  36. Dallasite says:

    Tim R.:

    “To Dallassite: You are joking right? Because when I hit the link button above it takes me to”

    Yeah, as Trey said, the blog that compiled all of those news articles. If you follow the pages, each one will lead to the individual blog post about… a news story in a mainstream news site in Europe. I know it’s difficult, but someone with your obvious technical expertise should be able to figure it out before Miami is underwater.

    “So is this another point of obfuscation or are your really ignoring the link and its source?”

    You are ignoring the links and sources, not me. The whole world has been inundated with the AGW garbage for 15 years now. It’s time to see the other side of the story for a while, and actually practice science instead of an unyielding faith in an AGW religion.

    “I won’t even respond to your claim of “pro-alarmist” site except to say that the science stands on its own without my help.”

    If scientific standards include falsifying and manipulating data, destroying records, conspiring to violate freedom of information laws, fearmongering, conspiring to silence critics, and blatantly lying, then yeah, sure, that science stands on its own.

    “Your failure to understand it is of no concern of mine, except when you try to convince others that the the sky is somehow green when in fact it’s blue or up is down.”

    I understand completely. It’s called following the money trail, and the only green these fearmongerers care about consists of paper with ex-Presidents printed on them. Don’t you at least find it a little unsettling that the world’s leading AGW fearmongerer is making billions of dollars off the carbon trading scheme and government subsidies while building coal fired electric plants in India?

    “Just because you choose to believe or advocate a position without any basis in reality or fact, doesn’t mean that anyone calling you out on it is somehow corrupted by an agenda–except maybe an agenda to cut through the BS your selling.”

    What BS is that exactly, that I expect slightly more than lies and fraud before I fall blindly in line towards economic collapse? Because, like any rational person, I am skeptical about outrageous claims, and expect those advocating them to present actual science, not the made-up-in-mom’s-basement kind of science?

    “Laugh at me all you want–it doesn’t change the facts nor does it advance your agenda in the least.”

    Laughing at you is easy. The claims that the fearmongerers have been pushing have always been paper thin, and anyone capable of rational though could see it easily. Their studies only go back to the 19th Century, an abnormally cold period known as the Little Ice Age. A 4 billion year old planet, and we are to believe that the last hundred years consists of the only history relevant to these claims.

    Here’s a little fact that the fearmongerers don’t want you to know about:

    “During most of the last 1 billion years the earth had no permanent ice.” – Illinois State Museum

    That’s right, the natural state of the planet Earth is so warm that there are zero glaciers on the surface of the planet.

    The reason that there is so much ice on the planet now is because we are still in an interglacial period in the Fourth Ice Age. Geologic Times of Glaciations

    I know you are pissed off about this stuff. I would be too if I had been so easily misled. Eventually you’ll come to terms with the fact that you’ve been had, and that the only flat-Earther here is you.

  37. Dallasite says:

    And Amanda, I apologize for nothing. Still love ya though.

  38. amanda says:

    Boys will be boys…

    I was just messing with you guys. This climate issue is important stuff. As much as I’d like to, we can’t always focus on kids, cooking, and decorating.

    Discuss away, I’m learning a lot.

  39. Daniel W. says:

    Tim, you should read more. ALL of these items have been in the news in recent months. And for the record I don’t watch FOX. These things have been in the major media outlets such as BBC, GuardianUK, CNN, etc. The revelation of these items have been MAJOR NEWS all over the world.

  40. Daniel W. says:

    Tim, I just checked the FIRST bullet point in the HotAir blog, and here are a few sources that back that first point. There are far more out there, available with just a google search of news articles. And there are just as many major media links for EACH point made in that blog.

    The first point was just a citing of the CRU scandal, and here are some easy to find links supporting that – I encourage you to look up all of the sources for the other points too, if it doesn’t offend your religious viewpoint – I wouldn’t want to shake your faith ;-)

    CRU (Climate Research Unit) lead scientist admits leaked emails were ‘pretty awful’:

    “…”unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.” It added that its concerns go “well beyond the CRU itself—most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.”

    “They claim…These were a handful of isolated errors in a massive report. But put the errors together and it can be seen that one after another they tick off all the central, iconic issues of the entire global warming saga.”

    “the emails offered “a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined… The emails represented a seminal moment in the climate debate of the last five years, and it was a moment that broke decisively against us. I think the CRU leak is nothing less than catastrophic. The emails made little impression at the UN climate negotiations in Copenhagen in early December. This was about raw politics and not climate science.”

  41. Daniel W says:

    Tim R said: “I’d like to refer you to a little law known as: Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385) that prohibits U.S. troops from being used inside the U.S., except to repel an invading force. Who’s invading? The Canadians? The Bahamians? Please.”

    You do realize that US troops were used to kill numerous civilians in Waco, TX, right? They used military tanks, helicopters and other weaponry in what should have been a law enforcement operation.

    This was blatantly illegal and once people began to voice this, a ‘drug warrant’ was hastily drawn up and added to the other allegations – because the ‘war on drugs’ allows them to use military assets against US citizens. There was no basis whatsoever for the drug charges, nor had such charges arisen before the seige and use of military – it was a CYA move to cover for an illegal action made in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

    This is not the only occurance, either.

  42. Tim R. says:

    Just as a follow up on the whole “Climategate” matter.

    Once all the evidence is in, it still looks like a conspiracy theory run amok…but then it no longer tickles the fancy of the tinfoil hat crowd…