Send this link to everyone you know. It’s a pile on. Please note that it is an opinion magazine. It just happens to be right.
Personal Blog of Bruno Behrend, social and political commentary designed to move people to the right, one conversation at a time
Send this link to everyone you know. It’s a pile on. Please note that it is an opinion magazine. It just happens to be right.
Man-made Global Warming is close to being in total free-fall as a theory. Remind your “warmist” friends that they were the same people attacking Bush on the misuse of science.
There can be little doubt after even a casual perusal that the scientific case for global warming and the policy that springs from it are based upon a volatile combination of political ideology, unapologetic mendacity, and simmering contempt for even the best-intentioned disagreement. Especially in anticipation of the major climate summit taking place in Copenhagen next month, the significance of this explosive disclosure is hard to underestimate. According to climatologist Patrick J. Michaels, “This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud.”
The evidence of scientific dishonesty supplied by these communications is so copious it’s hard to know where to begin an attempt to describe them. Many of the e-mails brazenly discuss the manipulation of scientific data either to provide the appearance of greater support for global warming science or to undermine the claims of skeptics. For example, CRU scholar Timothy J. Osborn explicitly describes how data can be reconfigured so that evidence of an apparent cooling period disappears. His colleague Tom Wigley discusses recasting the data on sea-surface temperatures so that the results seem considerably warmer but also scientifically plausible. The director of CRU, Phil Jones, brags about his use of eminent climatologist Michael Mann’s “Nature trick” which deliberately confuses scientific data to “hide the decline” in current temperatures.
Every person commenting on this starts with the obligatory sentences that the “hackers, of course, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.” Nonsense!
They should be pardoned, and awarded some Nobel Prize for Science as a reward for exposing a massive and intentional scientific fraud.
The recent hacking of emails from a British University expose the mindset of the Climate Totalitarians. It is as we skeptics have said all along. These are bad people, as a group, and individually. They are morally compromised.
In one e-mail, the center’s director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University’s Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” Mann writes.
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,” Jones replies.
Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute who comes under fire in the e-mails, said these same academics repeatedly criticized him for not having published more peer-reviewed papers.
“There’s an egregious problem here, their intimidation of journal editors,” he said. “They’re saying, ‘If you print anything by this group, we won’t send you any papers.’ ”
Mann, who directs Penn State’s Earth System Science Center, said the e-mails reflected the sort of “vigorous debate” researchers engage in before reaching scientific conclusions. “We shouldn’t expect the sort of refined statements that scientists make when they’re speaking in public,” he said.
“Refined Statements” = lies. Michael Mann = Liar.
It is really hard to make a moral issue out of greed, lies, and imposition of a soft form of tyranny Al, but go nuts trying.
In Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis, Gore argues that the prospect of disruptive climate change presents “a unique and unprecedented challenge” because its impact will unfold over decades and affect societies worldwide. Those are bigger units of measurement than political leaders usually work with when trying to build coalitions for action. “In other words, because of its planetary scope, this crisis masquerades as an abstraction,” Gore writes.
Huh? Check out the rest of the drivel in this National Journal interview.
NJ: Is the challenge more political than it is technological?
Gore: It’s fundamentally moral, ethical, and spiritual. To solve this crisis we cannot rely only on fact-based analysis and the kinds of short-term responses to which we are predisposed. We have to draw upon a capacity that we also have to form longer-term goals based on deep values, and build a sufficient consensus necessary to stay on a path toward those goals.
Perhaps because the latest “fact based analysis” shows a collapse of Gore’s pseudo-science? “Deep values” must refer to either religious beliefs (a core tenet of the environmental left) or perhaps the deep (cash) values Gore intends to earn by cornering the market of fraudulent instruments (carbon off-sets) his lobbying has created.
NJ: In the book, you are certainly skeptical that nuclear energy could grow to the magnitude that advocates such as Graham envision.
Gore: I am not an opponent of nuclear power…
Al Gore is an inveterate liar.
Because denying the obviously absurd despite massive disinformation is the sign of a strong mind.
A poll by the Science Museum designed to convince the nation of the perils posed by climate change has backfired after being hijacked by sceptics.
The museum’s Prove It! website, which is designed to influence politicians at the Copenhagen climate summit in December, allows members of the public to pledge their support, or lack of it, to the environmentalist cause. [...]
By Saturday, 2,385 people who took the poll said “count me out” compared to just 415 who said “count me in”, after being asked whether they agreed with the statement: “I’ve seen the evidence. And I want the government to prove they’re serious about climate change by negotiating a strong, effective, fair deal at Copenhagen.”
Environmentalism is nothing more than a religion. To be sure, it does attempt to fit itself into other religious ideals, as there is nothing wrong with being good steward of our environment. On the surface, therefore, Environmentalism does not appear as dogmatic or exclusive as Christianity or Islam. However, as you look at the behavior of its proponents, it becomes clear that it operates as a religion.
“The debate is over” = “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me”
“Global warming deniers are the same as Holocaust deniers” = “anyone who questions us is an apostate”
etc etc etc
The entire edifice of the ‘Man made global warming” concept is collapsing. Unlike Christianity or Islam, a religion based upon “humanism” is destined to fail, just like another humanist religion – “Socialism.”
Frame environmentalists as religious zealots. Many will back track quickly. Then you can start to talk about important ways we can clean up the environment without resorting to religious dogma.
Now that more and more of the world is starting to see the idiocy of the Anthropomorphic Global Warming theory, let’s pause a moment to understand just how awful global cooling would be.
The left will attempt to blame Bush in any event.
I have a lot of “green” friends that I’m going to be collecting money from in the near future. Of course, they will then argue that the “man-made global cooling” is the next dire threat to the world.
Regardless, it has been fun to have been right all along.
Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as “deniers.” The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.
In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country’s new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country’s weeks-old cap-and-trade program.
The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. — 13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)
When ever you come across a group of people who want to shut down debate (ANY DEBATE), immediately and aggressively fight them with all you have. ” Shutting down debate” is a core strategy of the hard left, tyrants, and liars.
The truth wins out, but only if you forcefully and resolutely keep speaking it.
I just found two great links that should help all of you beat back the AGW (anthropic global warming) dogma among your friends and relatives.
Here is a PDF to “The Skeptics Handbook.” It is an quick and enjoyable read that gives you the information necessary to take people through the process of conversion back to rationality.
If you print it, read it, and practice talking about it, you should easily blow away your child’s “ed school grad” teacher who only parrots what her master tells her to parrot. At the very least, make your kids read it.
Next, there is a fun little blog post by one of the authors. In this post, she showcases the hubris, lack of intellect, and mendacity of those who try to bully you into silence on AGW. Don’t let them.
A resolute appeal to fairness and science (as differentiated from what I call “Scientism”) will win the day. Stand up to these pikers and force them to relent or embarrass themselves.
Learn, practice, stand up, and LEAD. Your doing so is becoming our only hope.
Ahh, the collapse of the “Anthropic Global Warmists.” It’s going to be fun to watch.
Get ready for a three-ring circus. In one corner you find those concerned with the recovery of the economy, in the second corner those concerned about threats to national security and in the third corner global warmers who agonize about catastrophic climate change.
The battle between these three factions will revolve about the use of energy and will play out in the White House and in Congress, but also in the public arena:
• Obama’s economic advisers at Treasury and the Budget Office will try to delay any major climate policies that could adversely impact economic recovery.
• The National Security Council and Defense Department, and to a lesser extent the State Department, will be concerned with maintaining a strong U.S. economy to be able to act forcefully when foreign problems arise.
• The global warmers will be led by energy-climate czarina Carol Browner, EPA chief during the Clinton years, and by science adviser John Holdren, who testified that a billion people might die by 2020 unless greenhouse-gas emissions are sharply reduced.
Using all the powers of the Clean Air Act, the EPA may try to impose severe regulations on carbon dioxide, which they would like to label as a pollutant. If successful, it would bring economic activity to a halt.
The outcome of such internal battles is never certain. In Germany, the minister for industry has just stepped down because he opposed the drastic climate actions demanded by Chancellor Angela Merkel.
On the other hand, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has walked away from the commitments of his Labor Party to institute a “cap and trade” scheme.
The first one of these can be found on their site, or on YouTube. It is funny and enlightening. This one, shown below, should be sent to your liberal and moderate friends far and wide.
The video is of appearance on WPWR’s (Channel 50) “Perspective” program a few months ago. You may be interested in the other 3 guests, as they make the conventional case for dumping more money into a failed education system. If not, my stint starts at the 11:22 mark.