"Climate change is real and a threat."... (Yawn...)

That boring little snippet is only part of the response quoted by Elizabeth Rozenthal in a recent New York Times article. The quote is from Ben Stuart, who Ms. Rozenthal described as “a spokesman” for GreenPeace.
ben stuart
Don’t you just love that photo. Mr. Stuart… all scruffy, wearing that fur lined hat to brave the cold while standing between you and the poor, starving and worried man in the polar bear suit? Of course, had that been a real polar bear, Mr. Stuart would have been the starving polar bear’s dinner.

Actually, Ben is the Media Director (sort of like Obama’s Axelrod) of GreenPeace. It is his job to keep “the environmental agenda in the headlines in Britain” and “He does it by understanding how the British press and the rest of the UK media operate, with all their widely differing sympathies and attitudes, and working pragmatically across all of them.” In other words, Ben Stuart is the director of pushing green propaganda and works at using his connections (like Ms. Rozenthal) in the media to craft his agenda in such a way as to be accepted by the general public and to encourage those who disagree to shut up. You see, Ben also understands how the media works over here in the United States and he takes advantage of this through his friends at The New York Times.

The title of Ms. Rozenthal’s article interesting. “Climate Fears Turn To Doubts Among Britons“. It made me want to read it. I mean, it was kind of encouraging to think “The Old Gray Lady” was finally starting to live up to the image the Nic Name implies… The Statue of Liberty… strong… courageous… a shining light of Truth in the dark, murky fog of deception and confusion of the turbulent waters of the vast Media Ocean, etc., etc…  But no. As usual, the New York Times chose this “headline” (where words are chosen for the purpose of inspiring curiosity so the reader continues reading) to call attention to another growing trend (which disturbs/intimidates them) and the article that follows is another attempt to kill said “growing trend”. We’ve all seen how it works. They hear the voice of the “nay sayer” and immediately begin screaming at them, insulting their inteligence, calling them racists and comparing them to the likes of “Hitler” in order to humiliate them into silence. Can you say, “Tea Party”?

Elizabeth Rozenthal uses this spot in the New York Times to go the more subtle route… “whining”. She has tried the others to no avail… Insults, finger pointing, distraction… But this time she just wants you to feel sorry for her (and Ben) in the loss of momentum for the Global Warming in Europe…

Nowhere has this shift in public opinion been more striking than in Britain, where climate change was until this year such a popular priority that in 2008 Parliament enshrined targets for emissions cuts as national law.

She is sad to see the waning of those Global Warming Glory Days, admitting (to some degree) that enthusiasm is falling in America as well, and she looks back whistfully to the days when she and all of these other snarky, environmental activists (assisted by government officials they helped place in positions of authority) were boldly ascending Power Mountain with a firm belief that they were finally going to have the chance to plant their victory flag upon its peak and have the authority to force the rest of us to lower our standards of living while paying through the nose for substandard crap that is more dangerous, more toxic to humans AND the environment, costs more, doesn’t work or sucks up more energy to create than the “evil other method”…. Whatever. You got close but… no bananas for you.

Ms. Rozenthal likes writing about the environment… especially stories where she can describe in the most patient of condescending terms the pity/animosity she bears for the child-like/selfish ignorance of “doubters/deniers” who refuse to just accept her cause and don’t want to keep funding the failing eco-idiocy programs it inspires. But the stories in which Ms. Rozenthal becomes most passionate is when she can move beyond the individuals who get in her way to vent her frustration and use her keyboard to stick her finger in the eye of America as a whole. In this particular article, Ms. Rozenthal begins by asking us a question.

If the scientific consensus on climate change has not changed, why have so many people turned away from the idea that human activity is warming the planet?

(Well, could it be that it’s because “the idea that human activity is warming the planet” is… well… crap… no matter HOW many activist “scientists” refuse to accept reality.)

In the words of Ben Stuart (her pal at GreenPeace) Ms. Rozenthal (whether consciously or not) reveals the root fear she shares with him and other environmental activists and clarifies the reason she is writing the article:

“Legitimacy has shifted to the side of the climate skeptics, and that is a big, big problem,”

Yes, Ms. Rozenthal, it is “a big, big problem”… So glad you gave Mr. Stuart an opportunity to admit that for us… But what I don’t understand is why you and your “pals” don’t simply come up with some real scientific evidence to prove your point rather than make fools of yourselves by making lame attempts to deny that the GROWING evidence AGAINST the validity of the Global Warming even exists. And I’m not talking about “opinion” evidence here. You are denying blatant stuff… stuff that came from your own people. Evidence like:

  1. E-mails between British climate scientists at the University of East Anglia reveal they intentionally “overstated”, “distorted” evidence for global warming and repressed any evidence that conflicted with their position.
  2. The discovery of errors in a United Nations climate report.
  3. The unusually cold winter in Northern Europe, the United States and the rest of the world.

Ms. Rozenthal admits these key things may have indeed played a part in reinforcing the growing perception that the whole Global Warming things is and always has been… (again)… crap but instead of giving a good argument to put out the fire destroying their cause she hands us more fuel to throw on the pile .

In an attempt to discredit the significance of the hacked East Anglia E-mails, Ms. Rozenthal bravely puts forth a link she describes as the results of “Two Independent Reviews, which she claims proves there is, in fact, no evidence that the East Anglia researchers had actively distorted climate data. So, I took the bait… I clicked the link… Several links later (having to pass through other articles witten by other activists denying the scientists did anything wrong) you arrive at an actual Report.

Top of the page reads:

Report of the International Panel set up by the University of East Anglia to examine the research of the Climatic Research Unit.

Hmmm… So, this report was an “independent review” “set up by the University of East Anglia” to investigate themselves and absolve themselves of any wrongdoing…? Interesting. And who comprised The Panel “set up by the University of East Anglia” to prove they are on the up-and-up? Why, it was The “Royal Society”. And what/who exactly is the “Royal Society”? Well, they are described as “a very small acedemic entity within the School of Environmental Sciences”. And, where exactly is the School of Environmental Sciences” located, wherein this “very small acedemic entity” resides?

Um… on the campus of The University of East Anglia.

And who did the “other” report? (Remember, Ms. Rozenthal tells us there were TWO “independent” reviews, which clear East Anglia of all charges. The second “independent” review was put forth by The Science and Technology Committee of the British House of Commons and she tells us outright:

The lawmakers emphasized that nothing in the more than 1,000 stolen e-mail messages or in the ensuing controversy challenged the scientific consensus that “global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity.”

You hear me? Nothing, nothing in those e-mails challenged the consensus that global warming is real and man made.

Really, Ms. Rozenthal? How about outright admission of their intent to deceive?

Well, maybe she missed this email:

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

And maybe she and her pals in The Science and Technology Committee of the British House of Commons didn’t read the email regarding the Scientists determination to omit the results of any studies, which conflict with their opinion:

From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

And this email in which Kevin Trenberth flat-out admits they have no evidence to support the third point above, that temperatures have risen in the past ten years.

From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t… Our observing system is inadequate”

Of course:

At the same time, the lawmakers stressed that their report, written after only a single day of oral testimony, did not cover all the issues…

Yeah… There is that whole “issues” thing. But not covering ignoring “issues” that contradict their message is about the only consistant thing the Global Warming Alarmists have going on.

And Point Number Two? Come on… The UN? Make mistakes? So what if 5,600 of the 18,500 sources in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Nobel Prize-winning 2007 report were not peer reviewed even though they insisted the entire report was… peer reviewed. So what if a lot of the scientific research published by the U.N. cited didn’t come from actual scientists who performed any actual tests or conducted any actual research to get actual results to back up their claims but came rather from selected press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, student theses, newsletters, discussion papers and literature published by fellow green advocates?

So… Ms. Rozenthal asks:

If the scientific consensus on climate change has not changed, why have so many people turned away from the idea that human activity is warming the planet?

Had she really wanted an answer to that question all she needed to do was stop asking the “doubters/deniers” why they don’t believe and simply read her own news paper. One particular op-ed that appeared in the New York Times outlined precisely why “so many people have turned away” from the whole man-made global warming thing. It was written by another Nobel winner. Maybe she’s heard of him. Al Gore.


It is true that the climate panel published a flawed overestimate of the melting rate of debris-covered glaciers in the Himalayas, and used information about the Netherlands provided to it by the government, which was later found to be partly inaccurate. In addition, e-mail messages stolen from the University of East Anglia in Britain showed that scientists besieged by an onslaught of hostile, make-work demands from climate skeptics may not have adequately followed the requirements of the British freedom of information law.

Yep. Al is right. “We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change”. Facts are FAR more effective. We are simply wishing the activists who still keep trying to push this bogus green agenda down our throats would go away.