If you didn't know that the man-made global warming theory was an elaborate hoax, there exists no question about that fact now. With the uncovering of thousands of e-mails that identify the gyrations that supposed scientists went through to hide real data and to deceive the public, the days of faux scientists promulgating lies about man-made global warming are numbered. Al Gore, the two-bit, filthy rich snake-oil salesman should be required to return his unearned Nobel Peace Prize, and he should be made to walk as a pariah about the earth until the end of his days.
I have been of the opinion for nearly two decades that global warming is not necessarily a bad thing. I have known for nearly that long that natural occurrences are what affect the earth's average temperature. Since I began studying the subject in depth about 3 years ago, it has become obvious to me that man-made global warming hysteria is a craftily concocted lie that has been foisted on the largely unsuspecting public.
We've known for quite some time that at least some of them have been lying to us. A few years back, Stanford University professor Stephen Schneider was a chief proponent of global warming deception
We have to get some broad base support. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of doubts we might have.We know that morally compromised scientists have been hiding data from us, such as what we know both historically and scientifically about the Medieval Warm Period. For example, Michael Mann's silly "hockey stick" theory has been thoroughly disproven.
What we didn't know until now was just how elaborate was the scheme of lying, hiding, and deception. Now we do know.
Global warming alarmists are scrambling to save face after hackers stole hundreds of incriminating e-mails from a British university and published them on the Internet.Although baffling to me as to why, one of the most effective weapons of the man-made global warming propagandists, besides claiming that a consensus existed on the subject, was to brand scientists who stood up against the lies as beholden to corporate interests, such as to Big Oil or to the auto industry. This line of reasoning never made much sense to me, however, because the entity most capable of buying allegiance to a cause is government. As the truth leaks out, it will now become obvious to the rest of the world what those who cared to study the issue already knew--the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a complete fraud. Its stinking, filthy, rotting zombie corpse may wander around for a few months longer, but it will never again deserve or gain the respectability that it somehow once had.
The messages were pirated from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) and reveal correspondence between British and American researchers engaged in fraudulent reporting of data to favor their own climate change agenda. UEA officials confirmed one of their servers was hacked, and several of the scientists involved admitted the authenticity of the messages...
Climatologist Patrick J. Michaels [said]. "This is not a smoking gun, this is a mushroom cloud." The e-mails implicate scores of researchers, most of whom are associated with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization many skeptics believe was created exclusively to provide evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
I expected that, when the data was hacked from the University of East Anglia that the hue and cry would have been "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. YOU STOLE OUR DATA!!!" But in reality, their tack has been to poo-pooh the loss of data as being insignificant. No matter how long they stir that mini cesspool of propaganda, it has the obvious and distinct disadvantage of being palpably untrue. This is the most significant revelation on political machinations to emerge into full public view in the history of the United States.
If the data really is insignificant, as they claim it is, then it stands to reason that today's lawsuit against the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) by the Competitive Enterprise Institute will never need to go to trial, because, having nothing whatsoever to hide, NASA will quickly make public all its data.
Until recently, those who stood firmly amid the porticoes of the great and spacious building of man-made global warming propaganda used various rhetorical devices to mask the fact that their emperor was wearing no clothes. Among these were the claim of "consensus" and that "intelligent people know that man is causing the earth to warm". Now that more and more scientists are coming forward to disagree with the pure politics of the IPCC, and now that intelligent people have discovered that these so-called scientists are actually charlatans of the worst kind, they've resorted to asking "where are your numbers?" when they are informed of the--to them--discouraging facts of the case. Our simple rejoinder should be not only "Where are your numbers?", but "Why do you have so much to hide?"
Was the revelation of phony global warming data timed to precede the global climate conference in Copenhagen next month? If so, the timing could not have been more fortuitous or impeccable. It would be a bit embarrassing for delegates to the conference to attend now that the truth has come out, unless the entire agenda of the conference is revamped--to include an all-out discussion and excoriation of the fraud that has been perpetrated on the citizens of earth.
Those of us who have noticed that the man-made global warming facts have never added up are not environmental destroyers as the enemies of open discussion want the world to believe. All we have ever wanted, besides a cleaner environment, is the unvarnished truth. We agree that we should be stewards of our environment. We should finder cleaner sources of energy than coal and oil. We should punish multinational corporations that rape the environment. But we also shouldn't lie in an attempt to ensure that environmental cleanup happen more quickly.
Let us have a bonfire on the ashes of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Everyone is welcome at the party so long as, if you were once duped, you unequivocally admit that you are now sober.
It's past time that we begin a new discussion--the right discussion. This time let's focus on the things that we can really change. Almost everyone wants a cleaner environment and a cleaner world.
The truth is a great place to start.
Related Articles:
- The Death Blow of Climate Science - (Tim Ball, Frontier Centre)
Frank, I found the following link interesting. Unsurprisingly, the researcher concludes, "... I wanted to simulate what it’s like for people trying to learn about climate change online. / My conclusion is 'what a nightmare.'"
ReplyDeletehttp://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus/
Tom: It's interesting, but I can't imagine that it was actually put together by someone who was impartial. First of all, to say that those who disagree that man is causing significant warming don't believe in the validity of ice core data--this is simply false. Read the book "Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" of which a major premise is what the ice cores say.
ReplyDeleteAlso, of the thoroughly discredited Hockey Stick by Michael Mann, statistics professor Edward Wegman said that "Dr. Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis. Later he said "I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn't matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science."