Posted on Tuesday, 24th November 2009 by Patrick Dorwin
I’m glad that those that watch the media are noticing that most of the media is refusing to cover the fact that Global Warming “scientists” have been caught red handed falsifying data to perpetuate their lie to the American people.
As Rush Limbaugh has been pointing out for years, the environmental movement has become the new home of Socialism… And their willing accomplices in the media are trying to prove one of Mark Belling’s favorite statements, “the media controls what is and what is not news by what they choose to, and more importantly, what is NOT to report on.” But in today’s age of the New Media, the Old media is finding that they have less control every day.
Posted in Home | Comments (166)
166 Responses to “If a tree falls in the forest and CNN doesn’t report it…”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
An excellent clearing house for info on the global climate hoax.
http://climatedepot.com/
November 24th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
And for more news on global warming with some entertainment thrown in.
http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/
November 24th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
And the fact that the MSM, the IPCC, and the current government aren’t reporting that the situation is not as dire as previously thought proves they have another agenda when it comes to global warming.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Thats ridiculous Roland. ManBearPig exists. I have seen him.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
ClimateGate Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/24/climategate-totally-ignored-tv-news-outlets-except-fox
November 24th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
November 24th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
What’s CNN?
November 24th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
to perpetuate their lie to the American people.
And the British people–they were using American tax dollars at a British university.
I would like to know more about that.
November 24th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
James Hansen of NASA was nailed years ago for false data… nothing happened.
Nothing will happen here. Which is why I pay it little attention. It’s all monumental bullshit that has cost the country probably trillions in jobs, taxes and misery.
Nothing will be done. As a matter of fact, it will roll on like an old dried out whore for money — and get it.
November 24th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Junk science exposed among climate-change believers
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/
November 24th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Both sides of the pond demand probes into data manipulation scandal
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/23/climategate-both-sides-of-the-pond-demand-probes-into-data-manipulation-scandal/
November 24th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren involved in unwinding “Climategate” scandal
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17183
November 24th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
James Hansen of NASA was nailed years ago for false data…
He’s been nailed more than once and still remains the LSM’s main go-to warmmonger. The man is an utter fraud.
um, yes, as is all of AGW.
But we knew that.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
More good reading.
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html
November 25th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Hide The Decline – Climategate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk
November 26th, 2009 at 7:23 am
Tax dollar thief Folkbum actually is claiming it’s only one scientest “substituting” temperature numbers. With bullshit explanations like that, it’s no wonder half of MPS students don’t bother to show up on any given day.
November 26th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Paul, you notice that crumbum doesn’t come here and say that where people know better and know crumbum is a pathological liar.
November 27th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Tax dollar thief Folkbum actually is claiming it’s only one scientest “substituting” temperature numbers.
Which is not what I said. Here is what I actually said: Apparently climate-change deniers who have hacked access to fifteen years’ worth of scientists’ emails can’t find a smoking gun more powerful than one scientist admitting that he substituted actual thermometer readings in place of proxy measures for temperature in one of his papers.
Any of you smart guys want to explain how that’s wrong?
I mean, here you’ve got hackers accessing a server with millions of emails stored on it, cherry picking what, 1600 of them? that they think are the most “damning,” and even so there is no evidence of conspiracy, not one mention of Al Gore, no admission that the earth is cooling, and no nail in any coffin.
The email people are claiming is the smoking gun is the one with the phrase “hide the decline”–again, a single email from one scientist (none of the other emails use any similar phrase), that does not even mean what people say it means. As the author has explained, and as other people connected to the data involved have explained, “hide the decline” refers not to the grand conspiracy to keep global cooling under wraps, but to flaws in one set of tree ring temperature data between 1960 and 1980 that does not match other tree ring data from the time or thermometer readings available. To “hide the decline,” the scientist uses thermometer readings in his paper rather than the bad data. Those bad data are not, in fact, hidden anywhere, since they are available to anyone who checks the original research he references in his paper and in the email. If he were really trying to cover something up, he did a poor job of it by directing his readers to where they data actually were published.
Again, any of you geniuses want to explain how I’m wrong?
November 27th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Keep it up, true believer. Ganef.
November 27th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Paul, you have an opportunity to prove me wrong here, and you’re not taking it. I presume it’s because you are in over your head and have no idea what is in these emails except what Beck and Malkin have told you?
November 27th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
BREAKING: NZ’s NIWA accused of CRU-style temperature faking
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/breaking-nzs-niwa-accused-of-cru-style-temperature-faking.html
November 27th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Climate ‘czar’ says hacked e-mails don’t change anything
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/25/climate-czar-says-e-mails-dont-change-anything/
November 27th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Pretending the climate email leak isn’t a crisis won’t make it go away
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response
November 27th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Climategate e-mails sweep America, may scuttle Barack Obama’s Cap and Trade laws
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100018034/climategate-%20%20e-mails-sweep-america-may-scuttle-barack-obamas-cap-and-trade-laws/
November 27th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
ClimateGate Scientists Cited in Report to White House and Congress
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/27/climategate-scientists-report-congress-white-house
November 27th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Congress Launches Climategate Investigation
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2415-congress-launches-climategate-investigation
November 27th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Folkbum, it’s important for you to understand that no vast left-wing “conspiracy” involving thousands of scientists is necessary here.
Only two things are necessary.
First, drones in the leftist collective acting on their inherent like minded activist impulses when data mining. They need not be personally networked in an organized conspiracy.
Second, if a few scientists involved in activist data mining publish their works, it could essentially become a domino effect as genuinely honest folks below (or as Lenin might say, “useful idiots”)turn to the published hoaxed papers of the activist scientists for citations in research.
There are certainly more questionable quotes than the one you provide above, and I’m willing to bet that you’re already aware of this. But the response from the left that the science discussed in the e-mails is too “nuanced” for the unwashed to understand, was something to be fully expected so it shouldn’t impede further investigation into the matter.
The bottom line here, is that leftist socio-economic policy requires the artificial manufacturing of pseudo-scientific predicaments such as Anthropogenic Climate Change, the Global Cooling nonsense of the 1970’s, or Eugenics before that. Otherwise, rational people would never subscribe to them.
It will be interesting to see how far this story gets.
Because the reality is, Anthropogenic Climate Change has no more scientific reality than the Piltdown Man, or a heliocentric universe.
Once folks begin to realize this fact, the left will have a serious problem on their hands, because they’ve built the majority of their political platform on the Great Climate Change Hoax. Once the hoax collapses, so too does the majority of their platform.
And they know this.
Funny stuff.
November 27th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Ganef, I’m enjoying my holiday.
I’ll take the time to destroy your tax thieving ass later this weekend.
Meantime, try not to molest any of your students.
November 27th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Crumbum, if you could think for yourself, you’d be dangerous. As it is, all you do is xerox lies and try to call them truth. You need to be unemployed, if not drafted for REAL work.
November 27th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
The impression left by the Climategate emails is that the global warming game has been rigged from the start.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
November 27th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Vincent Gray on Climategate: ‘There Was Proof of Fraud All Along’
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/vincent-gray-on-climategate-there-was-proof-of-fraud-all-along-pjm-exclusive/
November 27th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Chronology: FOIA Requests and the ClimateGate Emails
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/295147.php#295147
November 27th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Again, any of you geniuses want to explain how I’m wrong?
So easy even a cave man could do it….
Simply, you are flat wrong about “substituted actual thermometer readings in place of proxy measures.
The “to hide the decline” mentioned in that email refers to Michael Mann, Penn State Climo-fraud master and chief author of the famous debunked-but-still-hilarious “Hockey Stick” temperature graph.
The same scam – “Mike’s nature trick” mentioned in the same email – was used to smooth out and reverse a marked rapid decline in temperatures as shown by tree rings near the end of the 20th century.
The “trick” was simple:
Your data source is not cooperating with your preconceived notions. Luckily your source – in this case, tree ring data – has run out but you need to report on subsequent years to your like-minded masters. So, you start using a different, more friendly source for your graph. But you don’t tell anyone except your co-conspirators that you’ve done so.
What Prof. Jones did, using Mann’s same hockey stick hoax, was not substitution but augmentation and appendation to one data set with another to “hide the decline” of the uncooperative first set.
Indeed, Prof. Jones himself confesses to the scam.
But the best part is that trees have long been known to be unreliable as a temperature gauges, reflecting much more, if not exclusively, of local climate rather than global.
November 28th, 2009 at 12:14 am
MjM, No one will refute what you so logically posted. LIBS don’t roll that way. CRUMBUM/FOLKTUNES is the classic lib…He cares not about truth. Like a AMBULANCE CHASING LIBERAL TRIAL LAWYER. Right and Wrong are not relevant. Winning an unwinnable argument is the GOAL.
If! The FACT that there is NO GLOBAL WARMING isn’t FACE ENOUGH. Nothing will convince them.
Not because your FACTS cannot refute their nonsense and illogical sissy CRAP, but rather, because NOTHING CAN CONVINCE THEM. They did not LOGICALLY come to their conclusions. LOGIC and TRUTH are of no use to them.
The bottom line is in the PUTTING. THOSE WHO BELIEVE…. are government hired and dependant FUCKING IDIOTS and dishonest hacks.
They are bought and paid for by LIBERAL/MARXIST taxation and control
November 28th, 2009 at 1:23 am
MjM, it’s not a “scam,” as it is the recommended way to deal with what’s called the “divergence problem.” This problem isn’t the fact that the data don’t, as you state, “cooperat[e] with your preconceived notions”; rather, it’s the fact that one set of tree-ring data between 1960 and 1980 don’t match recorded temperatures from the same areas at the same times.
So, yes, Professors Jones and Mann admit to the substitution, and in fact offer all the data–both the tree-ring and recorded data–for all to see, and if you want you can write your own paper based on the tree rings and publish it. Nothing is hidden. Nothing is buried. Nothing changes the fact that recorded temperatures today are higher than they were 100 years ago.
(And the “hockey stick” is pretty well supported, regardless of what you think.)
November 28th, 2009 at 9:20 am
Crumbum is back to lying again. It was hidden you donkey’s rear end. Stop functioning like a donkey’s rear end you donkey!
It was hidden. It is NOT Science what the Climate Change Scam Artists are saying. You alter the data, you invalidate the conclusions from the sample, period. An honest person knows that, but Jay Bullroar proves once again he is a dishonest person.
November 28th, 2009 at 9:42 am
It was hidden.
Nothing was hidden. Nothing is hidden. Look, in Mann’s original Nature paper (technically, Mann, Bradley and Hughes), he included both the instrument readings and the proxy (tree-ring) projection data. Even on his original graph, he drew separate lines for both the proxy data and the thermometer readings. (Here, for example, is a pro-denier site–so you can’t claim bias against it–that reproduces that original Nature graph that so clearly shows all the separate lines.) And right now, at this very moment, you can download both sets of data from Nature.
And since 1998, different iterations of the “hockey stick” have continued to include trendlines for all sources of data. The wiki article on it shows the 2001 IPCC graph, which has all the various trend lines, as one example.
So if this is a bunch of scientists trying to hide data, they are really, really bad at it.
November 28th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Searchable database of the fraud emails.
Alleged CRU Emails – Searchable
November 28th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
the recommended way to deal with what’s called the “divergence problem.”
Heh. Yes. When data starts to show contrary to your predetermination use something else or cherry pick your data set.
(Here, for example, is a pro-denier site–so you can’t claim bias against it…
Apparently you didn’t even read (or were unable to understand) the analysis, supported by additional info, that thoroughly destroys not only Mann’s conclusion but his methods as well.
Nothing changes the fact that recorded temperatures today are higher than they were 100 years ago.
See? A perfect example of cherry picking! Never mind that 500 years ago temps where warmer than today.
And without cars!
(And the “hockey stick” is pretty well supported, regardless of what you think.)
Oh, please. So completely trashed is Mikes Nature Trick that no one but the most entrenched Climofrauds and Goreites consider it relevant.
November 28th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
taken from m4gw. Ain’t it the truth.
Michael | November 26, 2009 10:32 PM | Reply
Normal Scientific Method:
1. Purpose
2. Background information
3. Hypothesis
4. Perform experiment
5. Observe results
6. Conclusion
IPCC East Anglia Scientific Method:
1. Conclusion
2. Observe results
3. Manipulate results
4. Insult all opposition
5. More manipulation of results
6. Tax the heathens senseless
Yet this isn’t news. The emails are too nuanced for average people to “understand”. To be skeptical of all this gets you branded as a “denier”.
November 28th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Crumbum ought to be ridden out of town to the Arctic on a splinter rich rail.
November 28th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
ClimateGate’s Michael Mann Being Investigated By Penn State
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/28/climategates-michael-mann-be-investigated-penn-state
Climategate: the whitewash begins
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018144/climategate-the-whitewash-begins/
November 28th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Renowned Statistician & Software Engineer Says Hockey Stick Data Was “Fudged”
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/11/death-knell-to-global-warming-renowned-statistician-software-engineer-says-hockey-stick-data-was-fudged/
November 28th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
UN Scientist Declares Climategate colleagues Mann, Jones and Rahmstorf ’should be barred from the IPCC process’ — They are ‘not credible any more’
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/4100/UN-scientists-turn-on-each-other-UN-Scientist-Declares-Climategate-colleagues-Mann-Jones-and-Rahmstorf-should-be-barred-from-the-IPCC-process–They-are-not-credible-any-more
November 28th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
and if you want you can write your own paper based on the tree rings and publish it.
Except for that he probably can’t, as the text in these e-mails may suggest:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574557583017194444.html
I would also suggest reading the Vincent Gray piece that I linked to above.
a pro-denier site
The choice of language here is what in part reveals the true nature of the Anthropogenic Climate Change Hoax. Essentially when words like “deniers” are used to label skeptics, and such an emotional investment in the Hoax is expressed, it reveals itself to be less rational science, and more faith based religion where the infidels are taken to task.
Good science, real science, requires healthy skepticism. Always. Furthermore, good science, real science, is dispassionate and does not involve anger directed at those who rightly question data and research. Good science, real science, does not serve political agendas.
The wiki article on it shows the 2001 IPCC graph, which has all the various trend lines, as one example.
Also, I don’t mean to harp on this subject, but a teacher really should know better than to cite the entirely worthless Wikipedia as a source. Citing Wikipedia is worse than not citing a source at all, and a teacher who cites Wikipedia frankly shouldn’t be teaching at all.
November 28th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
CRU’s Source Code: Climategate Uncovered
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html
November 29th, 2009 at 12:33 am
When data starts to show contrary to your predetermination
That’s not what the “divergence problem” is. It has nothing to do with divergence from ideology or expectations. Your attempt to redefine the term to your liking is a much better example of what you are projecting on the scientists than anything they have actually done.
Apparently you didn’t even read (or were unable to understand) the analysis, supported by additional info, that thoroughly destroys not only Mann’s conclusion but his methods as well.
Except that M&M have been eviscerated for their own misuse of the data, deliberate misapplication of MBH methodology, and even of changing their stories when called on it. In 2003, the problem was, they said, the data; in 2005, after the data were shown not to be a problem, they said, no, no, it’s the methodology that’s the problem. Weasels! And completely different models using different datasets and methodology have produced the same results MBH got in 1998–see, for example, the work by Rutherford or Moberg.
(Yes, I’ve done a lot of reading this week.)
a teacher really should know better than to cite the entirely worthless Wikipedia as a source
It was the first image hit for the IPCC graph. If you can find a different source for that graph that shows something different, fine, post it.
And by the way, I notice now that the two of you have shut up about the data being “hidden” now that you’ve seen that, indeed, nothing has been hidden–not in the original paper, and not in additional work since then.
November 29th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Ice Age, long time ago.
Ice Age ended, but no people running around to cause “global warming.” Sorry, we are supposed to call it “climate change” now (yet another Orwellian thing).
Why did Ice Age end, despite no human influence?
November 29th, 2009 at 10:24 am
I’m still waiting for the Kool Aid drinkers to answer Charlie’s questions to Mrs. Snodgrass:
November 29th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
That’s not what the “divergence problem” is.
But we aren’t talking science here. We are talking predetermination and manipulated data to support those predeterminations.
To wit: “It is because of this trend in these tree-ring data that we know does not represent temperature change that I only show this series up to 1960 in the WMO Statement.” – Jones, CRU/UEA, 24 Sep 09
Get it? The data works for Prof Jones’ predetermined conclusion up to 1960 but as soon as it turns south he some how “knows” it’s not temperatures doing so and thereafter just stops showing the data, even though he had from another quarter century</b). Instead, using Mann's hockey stick scam, he "hides the decline" (and produces an incredulous incline) by using a different data set and then appends years of false data years to complete his tree ring graph – the green line you see on the WMO graph.
You will note that the WMO statement makes no mention of the co-called “divergence problem”. It simply spews the propaganda of the false graph (not to mention a half-a-dozen or so other false scientific “facts”).
Except that M&M have been eviscerated….
I find it very telling that you provide no sources for statement.
Don’t bother. I already know.
for example, the work by Rutherford…
You are joking, yes? Or are you simply ignorant of who the authors of “Rutherford” were?
redefine the term to your liking is a much better example of what you are projecting on the scientists than anything they have actually done.
Quite.Quite
(Yes, I’ve done a lot of reading this week.)
Oh, how nice for you!
btw, we all already know the scientific fact that reading does not equal comprehension.
I notice now that the two of you have shut up about the data being “hidden”…
…and anyone with an ounce of comprehension ability can simply compare the published WHO graph next to the corrected graphs for about 2 seconds to see the meaning of “hiding the decline”.
And fwiw, were it not for McIntyre’s work years after the WMO graph was published, nobody would have MBH’s data sets to review. McIntyre forced the issue and brought the Mike’s Nature Trick into the open.
[Note to Jeason: you are so right on the Wiki thing]
November 29th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
That’s not what the “divergence problem” is.
But we aren’t talking science here. We are talking predetermination and manipulated data to support those predeterminations.
To wit: “It is because of this trend in these tree-ring data that we know does not represent temperature change that I only show this series up to 1960 in the WMO Statement.” – Jones, CRU/UEA, 24 Sep 09
Get it? The data works for Prof Jones’ predetermined conclusion up to 1960 but as soon as it turns south he some how “knows” it’s not temperatures doing so and thereafter just stops showing the data, even though he had from another quarter century</b). Instead, using Mann's hockey stick scam, he "hides the decline" (and produces an incredulous incline) by using a different data set and then appends years of false data years to complete his tree ring graph – the green line you see on the WMO graph.
You will note that the WMO statement makes no mention of the co-called “divergence problem”. It simply spews the propaganda of the false graph (not to mention a half-a-dozen or so other false scientific “facts”).
redefine the term to your liking is a much better example of what you are projecting on the scientists than anything they have actually done.
Quite.
Except that M&M have been eviscerated….
Very telling that you provide no sources for statement. But don’t bother. I already know who they are.
for example, the work by Rutherford…
You are joking, yes? Or are you simply ignorant of who the authors of “Rutherford” were?
redefine the term to your liking is a much better example of what you are projecting on the scientists than anything they have actually done.
Quite.
(Yes, I’ve done a lot of reading this week.)
Oh, how nice for you!
btw, we all already know the scientific fact that reading does not equal comprehension. You don’t have to prove it.
I notice now that the two of you have shut up about the data being “hidden”…
…and anyone with an ounce of comprehension ability can simply compare the published WHO graph next to the corrected graphs for about 2 seconds to see the meaning of “hiding the decline”.
And fwiw, were it not for McIntyre’s work years after the WMO graph was published, nobody would have MBH’s data sets or methods to review. McIntyre forced the issue and brought the Mike’s Nature Trick into the open.
November 29th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
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.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
November 29th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
November 29th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Warning to you Kool-Aid drinkers, don’t watch this, it might make your heads explode:
Thanks Fred, we needed that
November 29th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Lord Monckton on Criminal Aspects of ClimateGate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbPDc5aE-LU
November 29th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
And by the way, I notice now that the two of you have shut up about the data being “hidden” now that you’ve seen that, indeed, nothing has been hidden–not in the original paper, and not in additional work since then.
Oh no, you misunderstand. I’ve already posted links to stories above that address that issue, if you’re willing to take the time to read them.
November 29th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
It was the first image hit for the IPCC graph. If you can find a different source for that graph that shows something different, fine, post it.
Again, not using it at all would have been the better course, rather than citing Wikipedia. If the only place it’s found is on Wikipedia, then that’s equivalent to not finding it at all.
As a teacher, you should be aware of that.
November 29th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
If the only place it’s found is on Wikipedia, then that’s equivalent to not finding it at all.
Yes. At least bum is in infamous company…
The most interesting part of the leak isn’t really the e-mails (although deleting stuff rather than turn it over for FOI is a criminal act, so the admissions/exhortations are interesting), it’s the code used for the “modeling.” My cat scratches out better code in his litter box.
I want lightbulbs back.
November 29th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=2735
Proposal to exclude Canada from the Commonwealth
In the past, the Commonwealth has suspended several countries for human rights reasons. Now, campaigners, politicians and scientists have proposed suspending Canada because of its climate policy.
Rie Jerichow 27/11/2009 18:50
This weekend’s summit of Commonwealth leaders beginning in Trinidad is the last major international gathering before the Copenhagen climate change conference in December. Here too, climate change will be on top of the agenda.
The Commonwealth’s 53 members include not only developed countries like Britain, Australia and Canada, but also emerging economies like India and South Africa as well as poor developing states comprising some of the world’s most vulnerable to global warming, like the Maldives and Bangladesh.
In the past, the Commonwealth has suspended Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Nigeria and South Africa for electoral or human rights reasons. Now, The World Development Movement, the Polaris Institute in Canada and Greenpeace have called for Canada to be suspended from the Commonwealth over its climate change policies, the Guardian reports.
“Countries that fail to help (tackle global warming) should be suspended from membership, as are those that breach human rights,” says Clare Short, the former International Development Secretary according to the Guardian.
“If the Commonwealth is serious about holding its members to account, then threatening the lives of millions of people in developing countries should lead to the suspension of Canada’s membership immediately,” says Saleemul Huq, a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change according to the newspaper.
Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions are among the world’s highest, and the country will not meet the cut required under the Kyoto protocol: by 2007 its emissions were 34% above its reduction target. Canada’s environment department has refused to comment on the call for the country to be suspended, the Guardian reports.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:44 am
whoa. sorry for the double post and loud talking.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Lawmakers Probe Science Czar Holdren’s Links to Climategate
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/11/lawmakers-probe-science-czar-holdrens-links-to-climategate/
November 30th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
folkbum? Are you still there? We’re waiting.
Mr. Snodgrass?
I thought you were a global warming authority.
Please enlighten us.
November 30th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
India, China, Brazil Plan Joint Exit From Copenhagen Junk Science Talks
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/11/india-china-brazil-plan-joint-exit-from-copenhagen-junk-science-talks/
November 30th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
We had the data before we didn’t:
“Leading British scientists at the University of East Anglia, who were accused of manipulating climate change data – dubbed Climategate – have agreed to publish their figures in full.” -UK Telegrah, 28 Nov 2009
“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.” -UK Times Online, 29 Nov 2009 [same link as Jaeson's above]
Also, the MKE Urinal Sentinel published a story (one of two whole stories!) yesterday, 11/29/09, by NY Times resident e-propagandist Andrew Revkin. Revkin also blogs at the NYT’s site at Dot Earth and is the author of the first Times article on the hacked email
subject dated 11/21/09 under the headline, “Hacked E-Mails Fuels Climate Change Skeptics”. [note: having just return to the article I have noticed that the headline has mysteriously changed to Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute. Hmmmm.]
In the article, Revkin propagandizes, “The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument.”
In a followup in his blog, he writes of the emails, “The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.”
[Never mind the NYT's disclosure of troop-harming military secrets and publishing screen shots of Palin's private "illegally acquired" emails. But I digress...]
Revkin’s wackoism runs so deep that he has actually been colluding with the Hockey Team (Mann, Jones, Bradley, Rutherford, et. al.):
______________________
From: Michael Mann
To: Andrew Revkin
Subject: Re: mcintyre’s latest….
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:27:25 -0400
Cc: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
HI Andy,
Yep, what was written below is all me, but it was purely on background, please don’t quote
anything I said or attribute to me w/out checking specifically–thanks.
Re, your point at the end–you’ve taken the words out of my mouth. Skepticism is essential
for the functioning of science. It yields an erratic path towards eventual truth. But
legitimate scientific skepticism is exercised through formal scientific circles, in
particular the peer review process. A necessary though not in general sufficient condition
for taking a scientific criticism seriously is that it has passed through the legitimate
scientific peer review process. those such as McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside
of this system are not to be trusted.
mike
On Sep 29, 2009, at 5:19 PM, Andrew Revkin wrote:
thanks heaps.
tom crowley has sent me a direct challenge to mcintyre to start contributing to the
reviewed lit or shut up. i’m going to post that soon.
just want to be sure that what is spliced below is from YOU … a little unclear . ?
I’m copying this to Tim, in hopes that he can shed light on the specific data assertions
made over at climateaudit.org…..
I’m going to blog on this as it relates to the value of the peer review process and not on
the merits of the mcintyre et al attacks.
peer review, for all its imperfections, is where the herky-jerky process of knowledge
building happens, would you agree?
_____________________
So why then does the Urinal/Sentinel re-publish such an obvious propagandist?
Ya know, I buy that rag only for the comics. And by that I mean the whole paper.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
It is difficult to engage with those who cannot read, or cannot read critically. For example, the notion that because the CRU decided not to haul its copy of the original data from one location to another when they moved, all the original data are gone. In fact, as CRU did not do the data collection itself, all it destroyed were copies of data that still exist and are easy to get your hands on if you want them–a point made in every real news article about the story.
It is also difficult to engage with those who, through arrogance or ignorance or whathaveyou, refuse to accept the notion that humans–Americans in particular, because we’re so exceptional–cause harm to the environment by doing what we do, and that we have an obligation to not do so much of it when we know what the effects of that harm will be.
It is further difficult to engage with those who cutnpaste without bothering to check basic facts about such cutpaste, such as the fact that, no, it was not warmer in 1930s, and yes, India and China have signed agreements and are attending Copenhagen, and, yes, while the South Pole is (slightly) cooler, the surrounding oceans are warmer and the resulting weather is keeping the continent cooler (pdf).
Throw in regular commenters here accusing me of molesting children, and you really have to wonder why I bother.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
” folkbum Says:
November 30th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
It is difficult to engage with those who cannot read, or cannot read critically. For example, the notion that because the CRU decided not to haul its copy of the original data from one location to another when they moved, all the original data are gone. In fact, as CRU did not do the data collection itself, all it destroyed were copies of data that still exist and are easy to get your hands on if you want them–a point made in every real news article about the story.”
,
,
,
,
Please, you’re as miserably bad as the turds that I rail against on the pseudo right. You don’t lose data.. LOL.. and it doesn’t get dumped in a garbage can “accidentally”.
November 30th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
It is difficult to engage with those who cannot read, or cannot read critically.
A bold statement from one who claimed there was only one questionable phrase in the leaked e-mails.
all it destroyed were copies of data that still exist and are easy to get your hands on if you want them–a point made in every real news article about the story.
Could you please post links to those real news stories?
It is also difficult to engage with those who, through arrogance or ignorance or whathaveyou, refuse to accept the notion that humans–Americans in particular, because we’re so exceptional–cause harm to the environment by doing what we do, and that we have an obligation to not do so much of it when we know what the effects of that harm will be.
Language that suggests that skeptics are arrogant and ignorant for refusing to accept the Anthropogenic Climate Change theory, is really further evidence that points to the fact that this is really more of a psuedo-religious belief system rather than a real science. It also suggests, that the writer doesn’t understand what a theory is, as opposed to a law.
But huckster oracles like Al Gore have been prophesying ecological disasters for a long time:
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/eternal_melting/
And yet, America still has not been subjected to the plot line of some mediocre Roland Emmerich screenplay.
But I have to ask you, why “Americans in particular?” Particularly when China has surpassed the U.S. in its harmless CO2 footprint:
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=11068
Shouldn’t it be the “Chinese in particular” then? Or is it only capitalist pollution that is the problem, while communist pollution is harmless in the Climate Change mythology?
It is further difficult to engage with those who cutnpaste without bothering to check basic facts about such cutpaste,
A bold statement from a teacher who cited Wikipedia.
India and China have signed agreements and are attending Copenhagen
The turtle, and the scorpion…
Throw in regular commenters here accusing me of molesting children, and you really have to wonder why I bother.
That indeed is inappropriate.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Folktunes is such a deluded dimwit, it’s hard to believe he can tie his shoes. Folktunes doesn’t critically think, he allows his union to do that for him.
He’s a clown.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Another warming advocate sees the light on Climategate
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/oh_my_another_warming_advocate.html
November 30th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Mjm, liberals have nothing if they don’t lie and deceive. To admit they have been wrong never enters into their thinking, because normally they are wrong and know they are wrong. Even Folktunes knows he is an idiot. So her psrses and equivocates. When has it ever been the NYSLIMES policy not to print something because of how it was obtained? It hasn’t. This gives all morons like Folktunes a black eye,so they circle the wagons and try to stall the game out.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Jaeson has it not occurred to a ANYONE in the media that ALL of the climatehoaxsters at libs?
And those who were somewhat convinced, were so, because they trusted “academics” who are almost entirely out of touch libs. Libs are dishonest unless they are naive or just plain stupid.
These scientists went to great lengths to lie, and decieve. But in the Lib Marxist world, that is okay, because they are right. Ask Dan Rather.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Climate science email controversy headed for Capitol Hill airing
http://thehill.com//blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/69795-climate-email-controversy-headed-for-capitol-hill-airing
November 30th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
It is difficult to engage with those who cannot read, or cannot read critically.
Reading critically is what I do best. For instance, when I read that so-called distinguished scientists ash-can their raw data – for the stated reason having not enough room in their new larger facility I have to wonder about the honesty and integrity of these learned men and/or women, and am quite thankful that they are not in charge of our libraries (Hey Larry! You can toss that old heavy “War and Peace”, we only got room for “Tolstoy Cliff Notes”).
Notwithstanding the complete scientific malfeasance of chucking base data, one is also left to wonder: just how many cubic feet – sorry, meters – did this data formerly occupy to warrant such disregard and disposal?
Must’ve been in the 1000s, yes?
all it destroyed were copies of data that still exist and are easy to get your hands on if you want them
Really? Where? NOAA?
It is also difficult to engage with those who, through arrogance or ignorance or whathaveyou…
…eagerly swallow whatever nonsense ALGore et al spews.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
There is no global warming.
The globe is not warming.
There is no man-made global warming, because there is no global warming.
DEFLECT.
Climate change cannot be denied. The climate has always changed. It’s CLIMATE. I live on a lake created when a mile thick glacier backed away taking polar bears, saber toothed tigers and even Pelosi field mouse/mice/meeses with it.
The BIG LIE has been accepted by those who either WANT TO, are WILLING TO, or are NAIVE/STUPID enough to think that believing this CRAP/NONSENSE makes them MORAL. It does not.
We’ve lived through 40 years of liberals claiming that anyone and anything CONSERVATIVE or even Republican is RACIST. That stuck too. It stuck because those who run the MEDIA and EDUCATION have/had the power to enforce lies and political correctness.
Obama will march forward, not because he knows understands or believes in MAKE BELIEVE global warming, but because it gives him POWER and a PLATFORM for more control.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Mjm, unless the person reading these e-mails is mentally deficient, it is clear that there is collusion and conspiracy to hide that which does not aid them and to purposely misrepresent and manipulate the data to make the “peer consensus” pre-ordained Prophecies into “peer reviewed” facts. So liberals make reference to the e-mails being ILLEGALLY OBTAINED. They downplay the obvious dishonest and completely corrupt nature of this pretend science.
It’s LIBERALS GONE WILD.
December 1st, 2009 at 7:13 am
When the day comes that Jay Bullroar reaps all the negative Karma that he is accumulating with his constant lying, I want to be there to see him suffer.
December 1st, 2009 at 7:35 am
Given that I entered this discussion because one of you misrepresented something I wrote on my blog, and that four days later the same lie gets thrown back out even after I corrected it …
Seriously, is there any reason to bother anymore?
December 1st, 2009 at 9:42 am
folkbum apparently also finds it difficult to engage the persons who have questions for him and Mrs. Snodgrass regarding the global warming that happened long before man walked the earth.
I think his only two possible answers are that there is no evidence that humans caused global warming (now and at the end of the last ice age), or God made it happen. I would not be surprised if he hates both options.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:07 am
Misrepresented? Please explain where that misrepresentation shows itself and what exactly you corrected…
Folksie said: “Apparently climate-change deniers who have hacked access to fifteen years’ worth of scientists’ emails can’t find a smoking gun more powerful than one scientist admitting that he substituted actual thermometer readings in place of proxy measures for temperature in one of his papers.”
Paul said: “Tax dollar thief Folkbum actually is claiming it’s only one scientist “substituting” temperature numbers.”
The only misrepresentation is on your part, for if you claim Paul is wrong then your statement is an admittance that there are more than “one scientist admitting that he substituted” and they just hasn’t been found out yet.
Seriously, is there any reason to bother anymore?
Not really. You were toast about 40 posts back. Why burn yourself?
All you or anyone needs to know about what Jone’s meant by “hiding the decline” was presented in Jaeson’s link (#46) to the American Thinker
(geeze, I haven’t seen FORTRAN in 25 years!)
December 1st, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Climategate: Follow the Money
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html?mod=rss_opinion_mainClimategate: Follow the Money
Penn State Will Investigate ‘Climategate’
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/paper-trail/2009/11/30/penn-state-will-investigate-climategate.html
December 1st, 2009 at 3:55 pm
UK climate scientist to temporarily step down
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CAM0VG0&show_article=1
December 1st, 2009 at 4:31 pm
All you or anyone needs to know about what Jone’s meant by “hiding the decline” was presented in Jaeson’s link (#46) to the American Thinker
You can lead a horse to water…
December 1st, 2009 at 11:06 pm
@ Jaeson: … but he’ll still crap wherever he wants to.
@ gus :
So liberals make reference to the e-mails being ILLEGALLY OBTAINED.
I admit to being quite a bit uneasy of the method. We all should be. But there is line. Where Palin’s was wholly a personal attack, UEA is a public entity. As such, I see the hack-n-disclosure at UAE as “whistle blowing” in the finest sense.
Fascinating to contemplate:
Whoever pulled this off A) was well aware of the fraud going on, and B) knew exactly what the evidence was and where it lay. For that B reason I have to believe it was from the inside. And if so, what was the final straw? What pushed him/her/them to finally act? Jones et al fighting the FOI? What? And who? How many?
Whatever, the whistle blower(s) should get a Nobel (or something much more meaningful) in economics because the may have saved the entire world’s population from a century of enslavement.
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:06 am
The only misrepresentation is on your part,
Not at all. What I wrote claimed that “the best smoking gun” (emphasis added) that deniers have found was Jones’s “Mike’s trick” email–which was no smoking gun at all. Indeed, all the so-called smoking guns ginned up so far from the stolen data have proven lifeless, even the one from your precious “American Thinker” link.
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:18 am
Jay Bullock is a liar, a fraud, and needs to be unemployed. It is deplorable that he be allowed near impressionable minds in an educational setting. If he were a doctor instead of a teacher, he would have been barred due to malpractice years ago.
Jay Bullock said this – “Apparently climate-change deniers who have hacked access to fifteen years’ worth of scientists’ emails can’t find a smoking gun more powerful than one scientist admitting that he substituted actual thermometer readings in place of proxy measures for temperature in one of his papers.”
This is a complete falsehood, and more evidence of the levels that left wing trash will descend to in order to propagate a lie.
Michael Mann is the one credited with creating the “hockey stick graph”, that the Reverend Algore of the Gormoron church used to great alarming effect in his smut hitpiece “An Inconvenient Truth,” and it was this “hockey stick graph” that was the first aspect of the man-made global warming hoax to be exposed.
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/parody/tcs/
One thing needs to be cleared up on the matter of the emails. The CRU wasn’t hacked, but a whistle-blower may have released them. Oh wait…whistleblowers are only whistleblowers when they expose righty evils, otherwise it’s illegal hacking and unethical leaking. Regardless, they weren’t illegally obtained, as much as the global warming alarmists wish for us to believe. Regardless, the content of the emails was subject to several Freedom of Information requests. Liberals hate transparency, especially when it exposes their lies.
A reporter at the BBC received the exact same file back in mid October, and the BBC suppressed it.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/295157.php
As the emails from the Climategate scandal have been revealed, and the words and actions of the alleged scientists exposed, Michael Mann is in for much more than fifteen minutes of fame, or infamy.
Here is a sample of some of what this Mann had to say to his fellow peer reviewers, which for the record, are bordering on RICO offenses:
(Regarding withholding information from dissenters)
“don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.”
(Asking other scientists not to share information)
“So please don’t pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of “dirty laundry” one doesn’t want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things.”
The emails he received from Phil Jones of the CRU are much more damning. Even worse, the original raw data used by Mann, and the other frauds at the CRU, have been erased from their files, and the only data retained is that which has been altered by these men.
So to the lying Jay Bullock’s feeble attempt to explain away the problem, this was not the “most powerful smoking gun” of someone substituting numbers, but a clear and convincing pattern of fraud. If this were Enron, the Jay Bullocks of the world would be screaming for blood. But since they are working toward a goal of destroying first world economies in the name of global socialism, their actions are defended by Jay Bullock and his fellow slime.
More crap from Jay Bullock:
“It is difficult to engage with those who cannot read, or cannot read critically.”
Jay Bullock steals a paycheck every single weekday purporting to “engage with those who cannot read, or cannot read critically.” That would be the textbook definition of a latter-day Milwaukee Public School student, well versed in the discography of Jay-Z but cannot tell you why the Revolutionary War was fought. Of course, that’s not his fault. It’s everyone else’s fault he’s a below average teacher in a failed school district.
“It is also difficult to engage with those who, through arrogance or ignorance or whathaveyou…”
Thus sayeth the lying, arrogant government union hack.
“Given that I entered this discussion because one of you misrepresented something I wrote on my blog, and that four days later the same lie gets thrown back out even after I corrected it…”
Jay Bullock lied and distorted. The group called bullshit. Jay Bullock attempted to defend a lie with a bigger lie. It did not work.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:51 am
Australian Parliament Rejects Their Version of Cap & Trade
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/295341.php
Climategate: it’s all unravelling now
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018556/climategate-its-all-unravelling-now/
CLIMATE CHANGE ‘FRAUD’
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/143573
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:16 am
What I wrote claimed that “the best smoking gun” (emphasis added) that deniers have found was Jones’s “Mike’s trick” email–which was no smoking gun at all.
Except for that there is much more questionable dialogue in the leaked e-mails than that, and frankly what you apparently think the skeptics find as the best smoking gun, really isn’t the worst among them. I would suggest giving them a thorough read.
Indeed, all the so-called smoking guns ginned up so far from the stolen data have proven lifeless, even the one from your precious “American Thinker” link.
Actually, this is incorrect. The Climategate story is actually gaining tremendous steam.
Now we just have to wait to see how long it will take the Jurassic Media to report on it, which may already be starting…
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/02/taking_liberties/entry5860171.shtml
I have to say, watching the AGW Hoax unravel is pretty delicious.
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:16 am
Big Drop in Those Who Believe That Global Warming Is Coming
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20091202005057&newsLang=en
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:48 pm
UA prof told to safeguard questioned climate files
http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/319783
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:31 pm
folkbum returns!
Now please answer the questions posed to Mrs. Snodgras.
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Boxer: Hackers should face criminal probe over ‘Climategate’
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/70249-boxer-hacked-climategate-emails-may-face-criminal-probe
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Now please answer the questions posed to Mrs. Snodgrass.
I answered a few earlier. Many of the rest are answerable with a simple google (for example) or proceed from false premises (that one voice of dissent–or even 3% of voices in dissent–void a consensus).
But let me answer some of the others with a question: Since we know that forest fires happened long before humans first struck flint to stone, and since we know natural causes spark forest fires even today, why are we wasting money preventing them–with that stupid bear and all–and investigating them when they start?
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:19 pm
As for this …
he’s a below average teacher in a failed school district
Paul, I don’t criticize the way you make the fries at your job, do I?
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Jay Bullroar, 3%, the Global Warming Acolytes, do not make up a consensus, but the leaders in a fraudulent scheme which you are becoming an accomplice to. If this crap gets passed, you’ll be lucky to stay alive once the public sees it is false, all lies, and Libtard Democrats, like you pushed the misery upon them.
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:06 pm
you’ll be lucky to stay alive
Ah, with the death threats. Such a classy crowd, this Badger Blogger crew.
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:59 am
folkbum:
To say you answered the questions posed to Mrs Snodgrass earlier (where and when, I have no idea), then not answer the simple question, and say a simple google will answer it, doesn’t cut it. I hope you would not allow that kind of non-answer to fly in your classroom. To say you want to answer a question with another question does not help your cause here.
I have no idea how you perform as a teacher, but you are performing poorly here. Good fluff, but lacking in substance.
You can help to redeem yourself by answering the questions posed to Mrs Snodgrass, or explain why the same thing that ended the ice age (no human intervention) is not causing the global warming you allege is happening now.
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:34 am
Not at all. What I wrote claimed that “the best smoking gun”…
The best?
Oh, the choices! When one encounters so many hot barrels it is hard to tell which discharged the most bullets.
Here are two outstanding extremely hot pistols:
The Hidden Decline.
From a Mann and his lying mouth:
Poster: “Whatever the reason for the divergence, it would seem to suggest that the practice of grafting the thermometer record onto a proxy temperature record – as I believe was done in the case of the ‘hockey stick’ – is dubious to say the least.”
Mann: “No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, ”grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum. Most proxy reconstructions end somewhere around 1980, for the reasons discussed above. ”
…even the one from your precious “American Thinker” link.
If you think the argument, “well, heeyuck, its commented out”, has any validity in the programming world you are more of a moron than first suspected.
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:35 am
India will not sign binding emission cuts-minister
http://www.reuters.com/article/hotStocksNews/idUSDEB00309720091203
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:36 am
Researcher: NASA hiding climate data
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:45 am
Climategate: Science Is Dying
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574572091993737848.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:24 pm
World Exclusive: CIA 1974 Document Reveals Emptiness of AGW Scares, Closes Debate On Global Cooling Consensus
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/world-exclusive-cia-1974-document-reveals-emptiness-of-agw-scares-closes-debate-on-global-cooling-consensus-and-more/
An unpublished report of the CIA in the 70s was that the world was about to freeze
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ilfoglio.it%2Fsoloqui%2F3964&sl=it&tl=en
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:27 pm
UK University to probe integrity of climate data
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CBVM701&show_article=1
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:29 pm
But let me answer some of the others with a question: Since we know that forest fires happened long before humans first struck flint to stone, and since we know natural causes spark forest fires even today, why are we wasting money preventing them–with that stupid bear and all–and investigating them when they start?
Are you suggesting that Global Climate Change is a natural process as opposed to anthropogenic?
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Ah, with the death threats.
Oh come on. It was a figure of speech, he wasn’t launching any death threat at you. What’s with the melo-dramatics?
Such a classy crowd, this Badger Blogger crew.
Not quite as classy as using the word “deniers” in an attempt to subliminally invoke the Holocaust, but it’ll suffice.
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:14 pm
If you haven’t seen The Great Global Warming Swindle, you can stream it here.
It is difficult to engage with those who cannot read, or cannot read critically.
Yeah, I don’t know why anyone bothers with you, either.
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Are you suggesting that Global Climate Change is a natural process as opposed to anthropogenic?
I’m suggesting it’s not an either-or, but a both-and. And that to believe that humanity’s significant interactions with the natural world have no effect on it is dumb.
To say you answered the questions …
Try comment 65, for starters. But you’re missing my point: The list of “questions” is flawed and ridiculous, many of them obviously proceeding from bad faith or bad facts or both. It’s a denier’s version of “Have you stopped beating your wife.”
There’s an irony that perhaps the real serious failing demonstrated by the jacked emails is the one that suggests the researchers were indeed too protective of their data and fought its release through FOIA and other avenues (and you have to admit, they did not have legal permission to release some of it). But the reason they offer for such overprotection is that the data end up in the hands of people who don’t know what it means or what to do with it, and mine it to find creative and intrusive ways of distracting the researchers from their actual work.
A parallel, I think, was evident this past summer when groups like–here they are again–American Thinker–got their hands on health care legislation and deliberately misrepresented portions of the bill to suggest everything from a payday for ACORN to real-time governmental access to your bank account to dictation of where doctors could live and how much they could earn. It was all bullshit, of course, but Congressfolk had to endure the hounding from people who had these snippets of text from the bill but no real way to understand them. Much like these questions for Mrs Snodgrass–some may have snippets of truth in them, but the questions are just stupid. As in, for example, the Antarctica one–yes, that continent has been observed to be slightly cooler over the last 30 years. But that’s the only place on earth where that’s true, and the evidence suggests that weather patterns due to the warming of the oceans surrounding the continent have kept it cooler. Antarctica does not become, then, the agent of proving climate change false; indeed, it becomes another line of evidence to suggest that the effects of climate change are real and consequential for the planet.
Or the “global cooling” question! It is accepted fact now on the denier side that Everyone Believed The Glaciers Were Coming. In fact, no. Not everyone. Not even most. A few. And the ones who are still around and still doing climate science will be happy to tell you that they were wrong, and that the theory–that particulate pollution in the air would have a greater cooling effect than CO2 in the air would have a warming effect–miscalculated how consequential changes in CO2 would be to the climate. So even they, those few “global cooling” advocates, believed then that CO2 emissions would result in warming trends.
Which brings me to this: THIS IS NOT HARD STUFF TO LEARN ABOUT. And your (I’m speaking to multiples of you, not just stalker) dogged insistence that I have to answer these suggests that you view these questions not as legitimate inquiry but as weapons to be deployed against an enemy. Stalker, you assail my teaching skills based on my refusal to do your work for you. I assure you, that when my students have questions, I show them how to learn the answers for themselves, as that creates lasting knowledge and better learners. So you try it–pick one of the questions for Mrs. Snodgrass, and do the research and see for yourself why it’s bogus. You might start with the Mars question, and investigate whether Mars’s axis is different from Earth’s, and how that affects the level of sunlight reaching its poles.
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:38 pm
I’m suggesting it’s not an either-or, but a both-and. And that to believe that humanity’s significant interactions with the natural world have no effect on it is dumb.
This of course is incorrect. By what measure do you decree humanity’s interactions with the natural world to be significant? It occurs to me, that in order to make such a declaration, one would need more than one ecosystem containing intelligent life forms and accompanying technology to compare Earth to. In other words, if one doesn’t have a control group to compare to an experimental group in a test of a causal hypothesis, then how can one make such claims?
The list of “questions” is flawed and ridiculous, many of them obviously proceeding from bad faith or bad facts or both.
There’s no such thing as a flawed or ridiculous question as teachers should know, unless of course a person wants to avoid answering them.
There’s an irony that perhaps the real serious failing demonstrated by the jacked emails is the one that suggests the researchers were indeed too protective of their data and fought its release through FOIA and other avenues
I see you’ve found some more questionable text in the e-mails. See if you can’t find some more.
But the reason they offer for such overprotection is that the data end up in the hands of people who don’t know what it means or what to do with it, and mine it to find creative and intrusive ways of distracting the researchers from their actual work.
This explanation is in itself evidence that we are not dealing with real science here. Real science is published in peer review journals as your friend Ed Begley Jr. would tell you. The notion that the scientific information of this nature needs to be hidden so the unwashed doesn’t distract researchers is ridiculous. I can’t imagine how any grown adult could buy such nonsense.
A parallel, I think, was evident this past summer when groups like–here they are again–American Thinker–got their hands on health care legislation and deliberately misrepresented portions of the bill to suggest everything from a payday for ACORN to real-time governmental access to your bank account to dictation of where doctors could live and how much they could earn.
Except that it wasn’t misrepresented at all. The bill was an oppressive piece of crap.
It was all bullshit, of course, but Congressfolk had to endure the hounding from people who had these snippets of text from the bill but no real way to understand them.
Not in the least. It is the job of “Congressfolk” to endure the hounding from people on whatever matter the people deem fit to hound them about. The idea that somehow “Congressfolk” are blessed with some higher enlightenment, not possessed by the masses, which allows them to be the only ones capable of understanding a bill is laughable at best. We’ve seen the competency of “Congressfolk” in action. There’s no enlightenment there.
Much like these questions for Mrs Snodgrass–some may have snippets of truth in them, but the questions are just stupid.
Is this how you address your students? “Your questions are just stupid.”
As in, for example, the Antarctica one–yes, that continent has been observed to be slightly cooler over the last 30 years. But that’s the only place on earth where that’s true, and the evidence suggests that weather patterns due to the warming of the oceans surrounding the continent have kept it cooler. Antarctica does not become, then, the agent of proving climate change false; indeed, it becomes another line of evidence to suggest that the effects of climate change are real and consequential for the planet.
Global warming can make some places cooler, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMFfFNt9AgQ
I have a bridge that might interest you…
Or the “global cooling” question! It is accepted fact now on the denier side that Everyone Believed The Glaciers Were Coming. In fact, no. Not everyone. Not even most. A few.
This is revisionist history. It is a standard response formed by a consensus from the collective hive of the left, and one that only appeared after those of us who are old enough to remember the 70’s, began to bring it up in the debate. But a funny thing, a 1975 Newsweek article thankfully paints a different picture:
http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
Which brings me to this: THIS IS NOT HARD STUFF TO LEARN ABOUT.
It is hard to learn about when leftist teachers who have distorted views of reality as a result of regularly consulting Wikipedia are the ones doing the teaching.
And your (I’m speaking to multiples of you, not just stalker) dogged insistence that I have to answer these suggests that you view these questions not as legitimate inquiry but as weapons to be deployed against an enemy
You would be incorrect. You’re the one making outrageous claims and pointing accusatory fingers at “particularly Americans,” but can’t seem to follow through with the conversation when anyone upsets your delicate apple cart with questions. If you can’t take it, don’t dish it out.
You might start with the Mars question, and investigate whether Mars’s axis is different from Earth’s, and how that affects the level of sunlight reaching its poles.
Just please don’t use Wikipedia.
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Sarah Palin Tells Obama to Boycott Copenhagen in Light of Climategate
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/12/sarah-palin-tells-obama-to-boycott-copenhagen-junk-science-meetings-in-light-of-climategate/
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Science Czar John Holdren Grilled Over ClimateGate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJJ928EmDNA
December 4th, 2009 at 1:27 am
But the reason they offer for such overprotection is that the data end up in the hands of people who don’t know what it means or what to do with it, and mine it to find creative and intrusive ways of distracting the researchers from their actual work.
Wide-eyed stunned.
Words… cannot… express…
That is quite possibly THE DUMBEST defense of the Hockey Team to ever have been put forth by anyone anywhere at any time.
Indeed, we don’t want no ‘creative mining’ goin’ on out there, now, do we? No siree.
(btw, how’s the foot? Really, you shouldn’t be playing with firearms.)
It was all bullshit, of course, but Congressfolk had to endure the hounding from people who had these snippets of text from the bill but no real way to understand them.
Ah, yes. The stupid commoners. Why must we endure them? Don’t they at least understand that we know what is best for them? Why must they bother us so?
(Duzzit hurt? Should I get some bandages?)
Everyone Believed The Glaciers Were Coming. In fact, no. Not everyone. Not even most. A few.
Strangest feeling of deja vu. Anyone else feel it? Anyone? Anyone?
(Seriously. Put the gun away, will ya? You’re gonna end up with nothing left to put your bunny slippers on.)
December 4th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Ah, yes. The stupid commoners. Why must we endure them? Don’t they at least understand that we know what is best for them? Why must they bother us so?
What is it with leftists anyway? Why are they so desperate to have someone rule over them? It’s like they have this burning desire to be someone else’s pet.
December 4th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Watts & Strata question CRU “Lost Data” [krak]
http://minx.cc/?post=295464
December 4th, 2009 at 11:29 am
The Proof Behind the CRU Climategate Debacle: Because Computers Do Lie When Humans Tell Them To
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/
December 4th, 2009 at 11:49 am
U.N. Deletes Documents, Won’t Come Clean on Costs of Greening World Offices
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579108,00.html
December 4th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
What is it with leftists anyway?
It’s innate. Can’t really do anything about it ‘cept just run it over.
I was going to comment on the “learn about Mars” thing Folky wrote, but his notions about axis’ (axi?) was just to silly to deal with at such a late hour.
December 4th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece
December 5th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Mr. Bullock:
“Stalker, you assail my teaching skills based on my refusal to do your work for you.”
Unless you consider “I have no idea how you perform as a teacher,” as a negative, I did no such thing. As a matter of fact, that statement was intended to tell you that even though others assail your teaching skills, I do not. However, I now assail your reading comprehension skills (unless you misrepresented my words to be needlessly and maliciously melodramitic).
“The list of “questions” is flawed and ridiculous, many of them obviously proceeding from bad faith or bad facts or both.”
“The questions are just stupid.”
Great. you don’t like the questions, and you refuse to answer them. You don’t have to answer them. You can tell me that this is easy to learn about, yet you won’t (can’t?) answer some simple questions to enlighten me.
Your reply and non-answer pretty much discredited any credibility you had on this issue. Just because you really want to believe something doesn’t make it true.
I give you some credit. You are probably an educated guy, and you quite possibly are dedicated to your job. You want others to believe what you believe, and maybe you want to convince those who disagree with you. You take come grief here and keep coming back for more.
Your just way wrong on this and many other issues, and the manner in which you convey your thoughts here makes you look like a clown.
December 5th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Climategate: CRU looks to “big oil” for support
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/
December 5th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
CRU’s programming ‘way below expected standards’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8395514.stm
December 5th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
CBC’s Rex Murphy on ClimateGate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgIEQqLokL8
December 5th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Dutch: Gore Wrong on Snows of Kilimanjaro
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/dutch-gore-wrong-on-snows-of-kilimanjaro/
December 5th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
R.I.P AGW
“The computer models, all 11 of them, predicted that as the oceans and atmosphere warmed, the amount of heat escaping to space should decrease by 3 watts per square meter. If this were true, then the theory of manmade global warming would have a strong footing. But the satellite data used by the Lindzen and Choi inflicted a bone crushing blow to this assumption. As the oceans and atmosphere warmed, the measurements showed that the amount of heat escaping to space increased by 4 watts per square meter from the mid 1980s to the late 1990s. All the computer models were wrong. If the atmosphere is not trapping heat generated by warming oceans then there is no manmade global warming taking place.”
December 5th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Stalker, Folktunes talks in rhetorical circles because that’s all he has… rhetoric. I would judge him as I judge most people. Either you are intelligent or you are not. He falls into the not category. Not intelligent, college educated, government employee of limited logical and critical thinking skills. Folktunes lives in an insulated theoretical world of paid summers off and zero accountability for the failures that he passes on to the next grade. He’s a lightweight government lifer. It’s easy to be a lib.
December 6th, 2009 at 11:04 am
More evidence that Jay Bullock lied, this time in post No. 106:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/climate-science-gore-intelligent-technology-sutton.html
December 7th, 2009 at 6:53 am
folkbum:
You’re right. The facts on global warming, aka “climate change,” are an easy google search away.
Jaeson found a bunch of them.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:16 am
Saudia Arabia calls for ‘climategate’ investigation
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30291.html
December 7th, 2009 at 9:42 am
Folkbum is too dishonest to reply to that, Stalker. Instead, he chooses to engage in a personal attack on Patrick McIlheran’s Sunday JS column on the subject.
Of course, Jay loses all credibility when he has on his blog an Obama-knockoff poster of himself with what appears to be a phallus on his mouth.
December 7th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
S. African UN Scientist on Climategate: ‘Never in the history of science has there been such a flagrant disregard for the fundamental requirements of scientific endeavour’
http://climaterealists.com/?id=4579
UN IPCC Scientist on Climategate: ‘Why did IPCC Chair Pachauri NOT intervene at the time and made sure that the basic raw data must be made available to anyone and every one?’
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2009/12/ipcc-shares-blame-for-climategate-email.html
Climategate’s ‘latest twist is hidden notations in the data’: ‘Apply a VERY ARTIFICIAL correction for decline!!’
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704342404574578012533089846.html
December 7th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
UN climate chief: hacked e-mails are damaging — ‘I think a lot of people are skeptical about this issue…This correspondence looks very bad’
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091206/D9CDQI000.html
December 7th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Not hacked. Leaked.
Funny how the left’s love for “whistleblowers” evaporated in January.
December 7th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
EPA decrees harmless CO2 as pollutant
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126013960013179181.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories
December 7th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Folkbum is too dishonest to reply to that, Stalker.
I don’t think Folkbum is lying, I think he genuinely believes what he writes. The problem comes in when something is presented that conflicts what he believes, he refuses to address or even acknowledge it, much in the same way that some spiritual leaders will refuse to address or even acknowledge contradictions or inconsistencies in the dogma of their chosen faith.
December 7th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
EPA cleared to regulate US emissions as Congress stalls, giving Obama the power to regulate the breathing of every US citizen
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN0716450820091207?sp=true
December 7th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
The Fiction Of Climate Science
Why the climatologists get it wrong.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/climate-science-gore-intelligent-technology-sutton.html
December 8th, 2009 at 1:26 am
@ Heather: Don’t know when that was posted (good stuff, too) but Milloy has been saying the same for more than a week.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:56 am
The reason Snodgrass’ questions are good ones is the climate craze is weak on direct proof that anthropogenic causes drive global climate.
You can always tell when you’re getting to a lefty like folkbum…they’ll get all snotty and condescending to you. He’ll also ignore serious points in favor of whining about personal attack/insult. I admit, though, it’s fun to watch folkbum twist himself into rhetorical pretzels defending the Climategate cover-up.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Let’s review. No global warming since Al Gore was VP. Government paid scientists colluding and conspiring to hide data that clearly shows they are wrong. Libs declare CO2 in atmosphere at highest levels ever recorded. Folktunes we have a problem.
CO2 is cause of Global warming.
There is not global warming.
CO2 at highest levels ever, yet temperatures steady or declining during same 11-12 year period.
Liberals are dishonest. Folktunes is a liberal.
Do the math.
December 9th, 2009 at 12:50 am
Science czar’s guru called for more carbon
CO2 promoted as greenhouse gas needed to fight global starvation
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=118304
The warming theory is falling to bits
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_warming_theory_is_falling_to_bits/
December 9th, 2009 at 12:56 am
Jaeson, it doesn’t matter how much factual info we pile on to the LIB frauds.
They are RIGHT, we are WRONG. It has been decided. Consensus don’t you know???
THAT IS THE LIB GAME PLAN.
They DECIDE They REPORT.
Once more for OLD TYMES SAKE.
There is NO GLOBAL WARMING.
ERGO, there are NO GREENHOUSE GASSES.
ERGO, all the BILLIONS and BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars spent by COWARDLY CHICKENSHITS have been mis=spent.
EACH and EVERY industry that has been bullied into the “GREEN” nonsense, is/ARE complicit.
LET’S REVIEW.
There is NO GLOBAL WARMING.
Co2, DOES NOT WARM the PLANET.
LIBERALS are DISHONEST HACKS.
There is ZERO/NO liberal program that has EVER been successful.
December 9th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Well, Mrs. Greenspan (aka: andrea mitchell) says that if you don’t believe it, you’re a holocaust denier.
Makes you wonder what investments Mr. “honorary PhD” has going on..
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2009/12/09/msnbc-s-andrea-mitchell-climate-skeptics-how-do-you-rationalize-deni
MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell on Wednesday used the very loaded term of “denier” to deride global warming skeptics. Talking to liberal host Rachel Maddow, she referenced Sarah Palin’s opposition to the Copenhagen climate conference and chided, “Her Facebook entry says, you know, ‘Mr. President, boycott Copenhagen.’ How do you rationalize the deniers and the impact that they are having?” [Audio available here.]
“Deniers” is a word that climate skeptics find quite offensive, as many liberals equate not believing in man-made global warming to denying that the Holocaust occurred. (In January of 2007, CBS reporter Scott Pelley famously compared, “If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?”)
A dismissive Maddow moved beyond dictionary-approved words while insulting Republicans. She asserted that conservatives will either accept reality or respond, “‘We don’t believe the problem is real’ and become a denialist [sic] about it.” A denialist?
December 9th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Skeptical scientists gather in Copenhagen to denounce the biggest lie ever told:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6948960.ece
More than 140 scientists challenge UN’s climate claims in open letter
http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/
More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3
December 10th, 2009 at 2:17 am
Who the FUC4 is ANDREA MITCHELL and WHY do any of US care about her obviously biased LIB nonsense??
Bruce??? Bruce!!!! or Glenn!!!! GLENN???
Back me up here.
Why the MOTHER F@#4 do WE (conservatives) continue to play by THEIR (LIBS/MSM) RULES??
Why do we continue to allow these fux to call the tune?>>>
December 10th, 2009 at 2:19 am
Al nutcase Gore makes a statement and the RETARDED LIB CABAL lix his balls.
WHY DO WE ACCEPT THAT PREMISE??????
December 10th, 2009 at 7:27 am
Here’s something CNN did not report:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=792702
Explains a lot of things Gore and Democrats don’t want known.
December 10th, 2009 at 9:40 am
You’re right gus. Andrea Mitchell (Mrs. Greenspan) is just another reason why FOX News crushes their competition in the ratings and why Rush is so popular. When you want the facts, you watch FOX. When you want LIBTARD propaganda you watch CNN, PMSNBC, SeeBS, and the rest of the msm.
They’re all going to go the way of the dinosaur in 2010 and 2012.
December 10th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Ocean Absorption Of CO2 Not Shrinking
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/ocean-absorption-co2-not-shrinking
December 10th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Climategate: Gore falsifies the record
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_gore_falsifies_the_record
December 10th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Scientists in Met Office (Overseeing CRU) “Pressured” to Sign Circular Defending AGW “Or Risk Losing Work”
http://minx.cc/?post=295681
December 10th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
I notice the Liberals have run away from the overwhelming fire on their LIES!!!
December 11th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
UN Security Stops Journalist’s Questions About ClimateGate
http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/11/un-security-stops-journalists-questions-about-climategate/#more-44722
December 11th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Leftist Thugs Crash Stage – Shut Down Copenhagen Event Opposing Global Warming
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/12/leftist-thugs-crash-stage-shut-down-copenhagen-event-opposing-global-warming-video/
December 14th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Communists and socialists rallying in Copenhagen in favor of “green agenda”
http://www.cfact.tv/2009/12/14/reds-turn-green-in-copenhagen/
December 14th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Goracle Confronted on His Wacky North Pole Melting Claims
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/12/busted-goracle-confronted-on-his-wacky-north-pole-melting-claims/
December 14th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
ClimateGate Research Unit Disables Its Website
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/12/14/climategate-research-unit-disables-its-website
December 15th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Climate Change is Natural: 100 Reasons Why
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138
December 15th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Mrs. Snodgrass? Mr. Bullock?
December 16th, 2009 at 11:27 am
East Anglia CRU’s below-standard computer modeling
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/16/video-east-anglia-crus-below-standard-computer-modeling/
December 16th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
CRU takes down Briffa Tree Ring Data and more
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/14/whats-going-on-cru-takes-down-briffa-tree-ring-data-and-more/
December 16th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
AP lies for Al Gore
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/ap-clarification-gore-misspoke-on-ice
December 16th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
ClimateGate just got much, much bigger
http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/16/climategate-just-got-much-much-bigger/
December 18th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Al Gore lies some more
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_this_time_al_gore_lied/
December 20th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Questions over business deals of UN climate change guru Dr Rajendra Pachauri
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html
December 20th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Why Wikipedia is entirely worthless:
http://www.redstate.com/bs/2009/12/20/climate-cultist-william-connolley-sabotages-wikipedia/
December 28th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Time to Revisit Falsified Science of CO2
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18343
December 29th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Eco-Fascism: There’s an app for that!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDs7gWO-ggU
January 1st, 2010 at 11:42 pm
NY Times Op-Ed compares “Climate Catastrphism” to Y2K, UFO Cults, and other examples of mass hysteria
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/01/opinion/01dutton.html?ref=opinion