This is pretty good stuff of Megan McArdle, re Peter Gleick’s own-goal sabotage of climate change advocates by disseminating/allegedly creating a fake Heartland memo on its global warming strategies (not to mention his confessed identity theft):
When skeptics complain that global warming activists are apparently willing to go to any lengths–including lying–to advance their worldview, I’d say one of the movement’s top priorities should be not proving them right.
…but it must be said: Gleick really doesn’t deserve much benefit of the doubt at this point with regard to his probable authorship of the original, blatantly fake, Heartland memo. There is a credible case to be made at this point that Gleick stole the original documents, then created the memo himself; and, given that he’s a self-confessed liar, it’s going to take more than I’m not lying about this for Gleick to get out of it.
This is pretty good stuff of Megan McArdle, re Peter Gleick’s own-goal sabotage of climate change advocates by disseminating/allegedly creating a fake Heartland memo on its global warming strategies (not to mention his confessed identity theft):
When skeptics complain that global warming activists are apparently willing to go to any lengths–including lying–to advance their worldview, I’d say one of the movement’s top priorities should be not proving them right.
…but it must be said: Gleick really doesn’t deserve much benefit of the doubt at this point with regard to his probable authorship of the original, blatantly fake, Heartland memo. There is a credible case to be made at this point that Gleick stole the original documents, then created the memo himself; and, given that he’s a self-confessed liar, it’s going to take more than I’m not lying about this for Gleick to get out of it.
Here’s your daily dose of political levity, Save Jerseyans.
President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator and the former New Jersey Deptartment of Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner under Jon Corzine (quite a resume, huh?),Lisa Jackson, is returning to New Jersey later this month. She has openly accused Congressional Republicans of endangering millions of lives for opposing her draconian measures.
Today I read Paul Krugman’s NYT editorial insulting Republicans for daring to question the religion that is Global Warming. Krugman presented no real facts or arguments on the issue, instead focusing on the irrelevant detail of the professions of the witnesses at a recent congressional hearing. I should of course say Climate Change instead of Global Warming as that is the new term liberals came up with when the facts no longer fit their theories. However this post isn’t about Krugman or even global warming itself, it is about why and how conservatives should always win a debate on this issue. Liberals always try to frame and change debates so that the other side seems like they must be wrong or delusional, but all we have to do is expose certain truths and their arguments fall apart.
When it comes to Climate Change, conservatives can make 4 different arguments, and only 1 of them needs to succeed for us to win the debate. Liberals try to frame the debate as an argument over whether global warming is occurring, a scientific debate, and then argue that based on a “scientific consensus” anyone who questions climate change or any policy prescription that goes with it is essentially a flat-earther. Besides that being not true, it is also a shift of where the real debate should be, whether the policy solutions liberals want to impose make sense (HINT: NO).
First Argument: Is Global Warming Occurring? Liberals claim there is a scientific consensus about this, but reality is there isn’t. Krugman made fun of the fact that Republicans called experts besides scientists on the issue, but fails to recognize the IPCC panel which is touted as the UN expert body on the issue is made up for mostly bureaucrats. The reality is that scientific debates should be left to scientists, who recognize that theories are just theories, thus they are not yet proven. Propagandists like James Hansen have been exposed for manipulating data because they no longer act like scientists when they take a theory as fact. Instead of trying to disprove and test the theory, many on the left just want evidence that confirms their beliefs. However, some facts liberals like to ignore is that using a standardized measurement, it is a scientific consensus now that the hockey stick model was wrong and the earth was actually hotter at certain points in history. All evidence shows that the climate has not been warming since 1998. In addition, despite liberals like Al Gore connecting certain weather phenomenon to Global Warming, most scientists agree the two are not related. Now let’s say someone hears this and still thinks Global Warming is occurring, well that is fine and might even be true, but then we just move on to the next question.
Second: Is Global Warming Man Made? If climate change is not man made and not caused by Carbon emissions, then there is really no reason to change our behavior since we cannot affect it. There is plenty of Evidence countering this point, including the fact that Venus is a prime example of Global Warming (no humans there) and the fact that the earth has been hotter in the past (before all the evil human inventions polluted the planet). Furthermore, there are many sources of Carbon emissions that are completely unrelated to the cars we drive and the light bulbs we use (including cow farting..so we might have to kill the cows). Now even if it is occurring and man-made, let us move to the next question.
Third: Can we do anything to change it? This is really where the center of the debate should focus. Liberals believe that we should limit our Carbon emissions drastically to try to stop or more accurately slow down climate change. However, what they fail to acknowledge is that America cutting its emissions will have little long term effect on climate. In fact, if America were to cut emissions by 80% by 2050 (Can you imagine how many things we will have to give up and change in our lives to do that, almost everything emits carbon) it will have 0 effect on climate because of increased emissions by developing countries (countries like China and India, now the biggest contributors to emissions have said they are unwilling to limit growth). Plus, liberals fail to recognize we already do a lot to contribute. Many blasted us for not signing on to the Kyoto Protocol, but failed to notice that the countries that did almost all failed to reach their targeted cuts, while we exceeded ours during the same period. This makes it clear that cutting emissions will not solve the problem Liberals claim we should be addressing. This takes us to the next question.
Fourth: Does Cap and Trade make sense as a solution and do leading liberals actually believe what they say? Cap and Trade or something similar is the current popular liberal solution to climate change. Under the general scheme we will create limits for how much different industries and companies can emit as to force a reduction in Carbon Emissions. We will then essentially create a market for companies to try to maximize their allowed Carbon emission and with that we will need a regulatory system to enforce it (all of this will cost money we do not have). In addition the result of this will be “skyrocketing energy prices” (that comes directly from Obama). If energy prices go up that means the prices to make, transport and use everything else will necessarily go up as well, essentially crashing our economy. In the meantime, liberals like Al Gore will make billions through investments in the Green industry that cannot survive in the market place without government subsidies. Lastly, that also leads to the question of whether liberals actually believe the threat they are touting. Major leaders in the Global Warming movement like Al Gore are trying to force us to cut emissions on a daily basis and tell us the threat is imminent. At the same time those same leaders have major conferences that create massive emissions, fly private planes, live in big houses etc. The point of that is not only to point out their hypocrisy, but more importantly to make you think about what they really believe. If you thought the world was ending unless we do something would you really keep contributing to the problem in such a drastic way. Gore and others claim they buy Carbon Credits in return (essentially a scheme to make money for green companies and make liberals feel better about themselves), but those do not somehow magically make all the Carbon they emit go away. It seems clear that a normal person who believed the threat was as imminent as they claim and as fixable would start solving the problem with themselves. If all the rich liberals who bought into this theory started living in the woods and reduce their own footprints, then we could cut our emissions without needing cap and trade.
So with all this in mind, the question becomes do we ruin the economy, sky rocket energy prices and create a new regulatory system all because liberals want us to believe the answer to all the previous issues I mentionedis not just a yes, but 100% yes? The answer for most reasonable and rationale people is no and that is why liberals cannot win the Global Warming debate.
There have been many ridiculous claims from the global warming moonbats, but this one takes the cake. According to a report published by MSNBC (that should tell you a lot), all that extra CO2 in the air is causing birds to say to God, "You can't fire me, I Quit" and then apparently fly into a cliff and die’
One scientist actually call them Gary Larson events because these arctic birds crashing into each other, slamming into cliffs from heavy winds, or bleeding to death after being attacked by mosquito swarms, reminds him of the ironically absurd scenes from the "Far Side" comics. The really absurd part is of the whole thing is that they are blaming all of this on global warming.
When discussing scientific things with a friend of mine, a scientist himself, the notion of Science as the dispassionate, neutral observer willing to fearlessly proceed wherever the evidence leads – even if it leads in a personally distasteful direction – colors his conversation. In truth, that’s probably how we all view Science. More to the point, it’s how we should view Science because it’s how Science should be. We should be able to trust its conclusions.
But what happens if the scientific community, for whatever reason, abandons its neutrality concerning the conclusion the evidence is pointing to and decides to actively promote a conclusion unsupported by the facts? It takes no great leap to imagine that, in such a scenario, some evidence would be suppressed and other evidence would be gussied up. Not with a view to finding the Truth. With a view to manipulating the conclusion.
If Science is, indeed, the dispassionate neutral observer, the best conclusion would seem to be to keep on studying and make no definitive statements. A scientific version of “We can neither confirm or deny the existence of either AGW or an imminent Ice Age.” New evidence has emerged, however, which seems to show the scientific community did just the opposite.
When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
The trap my scientist friend falls into with his belief in Science as an arbiter of knowledge and Truth is not that Science sometimes comes to conclusions that are later shown to be wrong. The very quest that Science embarks on recognizes there are things we now believe that are wrong. That’s why Science exists, to ferret out the Truth.
My friend errs in trusting scientists. Human nature, as it exists in scientific leaders, political leaders, religious leaders and others engaged in the quest to improve the life and condition of their followers, is not exempt from the call and response of greed, deception, hypocrisy and hubris because their cause is noble.
As with Politics and politicians; as with Theology and theologians; so with Science and scientists. When looking for Truth, our greatest concern should not be the analysis of the conclusions being reported. It should be an analysis of the character of those doing the reporting.
The climate change cabal was dealt a deadly blow when a journal demanded a complete set of data to back their claims. Results published in the prestigious Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society show that scientists had been suppressing results. When the full data set was taken, the warming trend which allegedly takes the shape of a hockey stick disappeared!
Mr McIntyre’s analysis of the data – which he had been asking for since 2003 – suggests that scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the Hadley Centre associated with the UK Met. Office have been using only a small subset of the available data to make their claims that recent years have been the hottest of the last millennium. When the entire data set is used, Mr McIntyre claims that the hockey stick shape disappears completely.
As Christopher Booker has reported the Met Office, its Hadley Centre in Exeter and the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at University of East Anglia are among the primary drivers of global climate change alarmism. Their data has formed the basis for the IPCC’s “we’re all doomed” reports; their scientists – among them Professor Phil Jones and tree ring expert Professor Keith Briffa – have been doughty supporters of Mann’s Hockey Stick theory and of the computer models showing inexorably rising temperatures.
John Stossel explores the hysteria, interviews indoctrinated children
The former vice president feigned outrage when a filmmaker dared to challenge his dogma.
McAleer asked Gore about a court case brought by British parents who challenged the veracity of nine facts in Gore’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” and argued that the film should be taken out of schools.
“Do you accept the findings,” asked McAleer, “and have you done anything to correct those errors?”
“Well, I’m not going to go through all of those,” he said. “The ruling was in favor of the movie, by the way. The ruling was in favor of showing the movie in schools.”
But while dismissing the question, Gore joked that one of the controversies in his documentary was whether polar bears were endangered. “Word didn’t get to the polar bears,” he chuckled.
McAleer saw an opening and took it. “Well, the number of polar bears have increased, and are increasing.”
“This is the film Al Gore and Hollywood don’t want you to see,” declares the website for the latest work by film-makers Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer.
One of the lies being spread by global warming alarmists such as Greenpeace is that forest fires are fueled by global warming.
Greenpeace has warned of an imminent “global emergency” as climate change fuels forest fires that have already destroyed tens of thousands of hectares in southern Europe this year.
AccuWeather forecaster debunks wildfire climate change link
Former Vice President Al Gore shared his optimism about the “shifting momentum” of the climate change debate with about 500 environmental journalists Friday in Madison.
“We’re very close to that political tipping point,” Gore said at the Society of Environmental Journalists annual conference at the Madison Concourse Hotel.
John Coleman, who founded the cable network in 1982, suggests suing for fraud proponents of global warming, including Al Gore, and companies that sell carbon credits.
“Is he committing financial fraud? That is the question,” Coleman said.
This Nov. 5th fight the fraternity of fradulent propagandists pushing for fascist governance by pledging support for a pro-liberty candidate at thisnovember5th.com
Global warming is complete rubbish! Remember when “global warming” was going to cause more hurricanes? It is not happening. In fact, since 2005, America has only been struck by one major hurricane.
A new study by Florida State University researcher Ryan Maue shows worldwide cyclone activity – typhoons, as well as hurricanes – has reached at least a 30-year low.
Two more studies – one by the Leibniz Institute of Marine Science and the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology in Germany and another by the University of Wisconsin – predict a slowing, or even a reversal of warming, for at least the next 10 to 20 years.
What about the shrinking Arctic sea ice and the declining polar bear population? Those are things are not happening either.
The Arctic sea ice has grown more on a percentage basis this winter than it has since 1979.
The number of polar bears has risen 25 percent in the past decade. There are 15,000 of them in the Arctic now, where 10 years ago there were 12,000.
Further,
Climatologist Joe D’Aleo of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, says new data “show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise.”
Someone please tell Hussein the Usurper that the science is irrefutable and there is no reason to destroy the greatest engine of productivity in the history of man
Dan Spencer: Scorned by GOP electorate Roemer to go all Nader and continue his Quixotic presidential quest as an Independent. http://t.co/ePvruHMB#RSRH
Moe Lane
PG DeFreese
Victoria Coates
Daniel Horowitz
Dan Spencer
