Why the Global Warming Hoax?
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
The major unanswered question are the motives behind all the lies, exaggerations, cover-ups, and suppression of opposing views. The scientists’ actions can be understood in part because of all the fame, luxury meetings, and millions of dollars of government money they received to promote their agenda—namely, (1) that the world was warming and (2) that human beings were responsible. If sunspots were responsible for the warming cycles, then there would be little justification for government money to subsidize the scientists to find ways to stop it.
Similarly, many big corporations saw billions in government “carbon” subsidies for windmills, research, and such, so they supported the theories as well. They could sucker the taxpayers while making for themselves an image of concerned citizens helping to “save the world.” (See Climate Money–$79 Billion So Far and Trillions To Come from the Science and Public Policy Institute.) For comparison, think also of the way many businesses supported the lies about ethanol saving energy–with billions of dollars in subsidies for ethanol production. The whole hype was another hoax. Historians one day will write in awe of America’s unbelievable waste of money and resources during the Bush-Obama years.
The crazy big-media hype was mainly for the same old reason newsboys used to shout “FIRE!” or “MURDER!” The “end of the world” is always a good topic to pique readers’ and TV viewers’ interest. Circulation and money drive big media. Everyone would pay to learn about coming disasters. Remember how, a little while ago, they were telling us that more and stronger hurricanes would be coming every year.
However, there were some real brains with other motives for promoting the lies. Extreme environmentalism has become the new socialism, an excuse for dictatorial rule to limit consumption and justify highly centralized government power “to save humanity.” Below is a list of quotes from leading leftists. There were brains behind it all, the old socialists looking for a new justification for government takeover of the economy, for a “planned” economy which they would plan and manage. Man-made global warming became the substitute agenda for Leftists who had been discredited by Reaganomics and the collapse of communism.
The following quotes were first circulated by Ralph Voss, editor of the Unterrified Democrat published in Linn, Mo. They well explain the agenda. They provide much hard evidence about the hoax. (The links to sources are mine.)
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” Timothy Wirth, President of the U.N. Foundation and former Democratic U.S. senator from Colorado.
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” Christine Stewart, former Canadian minister of the environment who led that country’s delegation to Kyoto.
“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States,” John Holdren (Obama’s Science Czar) wrote in a 1973 book he co-authored with Paul R. Ehrlch and Anne H. Ehrlich. “De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation.” See also John Holdren and the Anti-Growth Malthusians for interesting links and quotations.
“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the U.S. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.” Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton professor and member of Environmental Defense Fund.“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” Maurice Strong, a native of Canada considered by some to be one of the leading environmentalists in the world. He is an official at the U.N.
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” Paul Watson, co-founder of the environmental group Greenpeace.
“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” Dave Foreman, U.S. environmentalist and co-founder of radical environmental group Earth First.
Filed under: Politics, Scandal
Don’t overlook a hundred trillion dollar CO2 derivatives bubble – fiat finances backed by used air.
Don’t overlook the appeal of being one of the elite whose fatwas override national sovereignty.
The cause of the problems that humans are facing is that they don’t want to be answerable to a divine being. I invite you to think about this seriously.
[...] Post By Google News Click Here For The Entire Article Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and [...]
The “science” of global warming, and/or climate change is NOT a hoax. It just got co-opted by the libs and the socialists, then perverted and exaggerated.
I carefully laid out what was going on, in my earlier comments:
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2009/05/11/the-path-back-to-power-begins-with-opposing-socialism/#comment-6338
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2009/05/11/the-path-back-to-power-begins-with-opposing-socialism/#comment-6349
If you took the time to follow the above links, you find that this latest scandal (email showing scientists are willing to lie) about missing or twisted data is not the first occurrance, but rather has been part of a pattern for several years.
“Particularly troubling are the years from 1986-1998. In the 2007 version of the graph, the 1986 data was adjusted upwards by 0.4 degrees relative to the 1999 graph. In fact, every year except one from 1986-1998 was adjusted upwards, by an average of 0.2 degrees. If someone wanted to present a case for a lot of recent warming, adjusting data upwards would be an excellent way to do it.
Looking at the NASA website, we can see that the person in charge of the temperature data is the eminent Dr. James Hansen – Al Gore’s science advisor and the world’s leading long-term advocate of global warming.”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/
Folks, this stuff has been going on, not just in the UK, for many years.
Is it April Fool’s Day already?
“Much recent attention has been paid to the email about the “trick” and the effort to “hide the decline”. Climate scientists have complained that this email has been taken “out of context”. In this case, I’m not sure that it’s in their interests that this email be placed in context because the context leads right back to a meeting of IPCC authors in Tanzania, raising serious questions about the role of IPCC itself in “hiding the decline” in the Briffa reconstruction.”
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/
The overwhelming majority of the world’s climatologists agree on man-made global warming, most of the western world’s politicians accept that something needs to be done. However, it’s only American conservatives who know the truth, i.e. that everything is a big conspiracy, them being so much smarter than anybody else. And this certainly has nothing to do with the fact that Al Gore and the liberals believe in global warming and that they (the conservatives) just cannot accept anything that Al Gore says. No, it’s just sound and rational skepticism, no emotions involved.
“Man-made global warming became the substitute agenda for Leftists who had been discredited by Reaganomics and the collapse of communism.”
Yeah, I call spoof too.
There is no way that – anyone – with a frontal lobe could write something this jaw-on-the-floor bizarre without a healthy sense of humour informing their actions.
Bravo, Sir. (golf clap)
I wish it were possible for Mr Utley to distinguish between normative and pathological science , but such is not the case.
He merely illustrates that disinformation is no substitute for counterpropaganda.
Probably I should give every pundit writing about global warming an 8th grade science quiz. Now what should I do to do those who flunk it, which would of course be almost all of them?
Suggestions are welcome.
I agree with all the liberals who have commented here:
Conservatives who are not convinced of anthropogenic climate change fall into one of these categories:
1. Arrogant/emotionally reactive (Heisel)
2. Just too stupid/brainless to get it (Tony J)
3. Ignorant and uneducated about basic science (Russell, Gregory)
It’s important to ignore any so-called evidence of collusion by elites to use this issue to wrangle control of human action, so that humanity can realize its destiny as they have envisioned it. You may question human motives, but you just can’t question the science (unless you think science is a four letter word), because this moment’s consensus of experts and intellectuals interpreting science has never and will never be wrong.
Everyone wants to be on the right side of history, and everyone knows that the right side is the one that wins. So, Conservatives, get on board!
I’ve been compiling and posting a lot of interesting videos and information on this breaking scandal from around the web. My recent headlines:
Climategate: Glib neocolonial globalization advocates hoodwinking and exploiting developing nations and taxpayers yet again
http://www.libertariantoday.com/2009/12/climategate-glib-neocolonial.html
Motives behind “global warming” fraudsters far more sinister than environmental fanaticism
http://www.libertariantoday.com/2009/12/motives-behind-global-warming.html
Holocaustianity for the Green set: the political cult of “climate change”
http://www.libertariantoday.com/2009/12/holocaust-industry-for-green-set.html
—-
What appears to be unfolding is a massive international fraud on the level of the engineered worldwide housing bubble, albeit not yet so economically cumbersome to the man on the street. But if the Green-cult succeeds, it will probably surpass the housing bubble’s economic devastation.
Jack Tracey,
Uh, WTF?
Pointing out that this cracker of a line –
“Man-made global warming became the substitute agenda for Leftists who had been discredited by Reaganomics and the collapse of communism.”
– leads me to believe that the author must be a spoof, because no one could be stupid enough to write something this jaw-droppingly ridiculous, makes you think that I’m a conservative?
In the nicest way possible, your reading comprehension is currently in fail status. Please reset your protocols.
The New York Times is pretty sure the Government has an answer to these conservative naysayers:
“The government is increasingly monitoring Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites for tax delinquents, copyright infringers and political protesters.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/opinion/13sun2.html?_r=1
When the government has identified the troublemakers, then:
http://www.onecitizenspeaking.com/2009/07/hr-3247-the-governments-department-of-propaganda-behavior-modification-buried-in-the-department-of-energy.html
It is possible to question, or to effectively criticize, the general scientific consensus on a topic – but you can’t do an effective job if you don’t know a damn thing. In the same way, you can’t meaningfully _support_ such a view if you don’t know anything.
Very few pundits – fingers-of-one-hand few – know anything about this subject.
I read Mr J Tracey’s submission with weary familiarity.
I am an old Englishman well read in history, science and the law. I’ve also travelled much.
Mr Tracey’s list of ‘ad hominen’ insults can equally be redirected at him and his ‘pals’.
What he calls ’so-called evidence of collusion’ at the Climate Research Unit at Norwich (University of E. Anglia) is real, tangible evidence and will, of course, be used in the inquiry to be set up. Prof Jones did resign (’step down pending the results of…’ etc) despite assertion of innocence. Innocent men of moral stature do not do that.
Jack Tracey,
Oh, I get what you did there. Have a golf clap.
Having reset my own protocols, I’m afraid all you’ve done is take the statement -
“Man-made global warming became the substitute agenda for Leftists who had been discredited by Reaganomics and the collapse of communism.”
– and made it your own, which is just a bizarre thing to do. I mean, basing an argument on the idea that Reaganomics isn’t a failed ideology? A year after the global economy was all but crashed by it? That’s bizarre. Almost as bizarre as postulating a global conspiracy of, well, basically everyone who isn’t a right-wing American conservative, labelling them ‘Leftists’, and thinking that that ‘proves’ anything.
Then again, I shouldn’t be so surprised. Modern movement conservatism has devolved into a cult of people who would bar the doors of a burning building if they were told that the people shouting “Fire!” were liberals, because the really – important – point to bear in mind, even as the smoke billows and your hair burns, is that liberals are – always – just trying to find new ways of telling conservatives what to do.
Whatever floats your boat, chief.
I’m glad to finally see an entry on this blog on the global warming hoax. The only previous mentions of GW were made by Stooksbury, who believed this garbage. He even approvingly mentioned the eco-crackpot Bill McKibben. How much fun to watch the purveyors of this myth twist in the wind.
The basis for belief in a cause and effect relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and rises in global temperatures is the set of computer models that are reference by the United Nations agency the IPCC.At http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/07/global_warming_and_forecasts_o.html , the climatologist and IPCC model builder Keven Trenberth states that
“Given that human induced climate change is with us, a looming challenge is to predict just what the climate will be. To date, there are no such predictions although the projections given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are often treated as such. The distinction is important.”
Trenberth goes on to say that
“In fact IPCC does not do forecasts, as explained in my earlier post. The IPCC instead proffers “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios.”
Everyone involved in the debate over public policy should understand the implication of Trenberth’s testimony for it resolves a source of confusion that muddies the waters. A model that makes predictions is falsifiable, thus lying in science under the rule enunciated by the philsopher of science Karl Popper. Under the same rule, a model that makes no predictions lies outside science. Though the IPCC’s models were built by scientists, they are not scienitific models. To confuse a model built by scientists with a scientific model is an understandable but highly misleading error. It leads many well intentioned people to the false conclusion that the argument for regulation of carbon dioxide emissions is from science. In fact, though it is made by scientists, this argument is from authority.
Thank you Heisel for the compliment. WE ARE SO MUCH SMARTER than everyone else. We just proved it, you dolt. You on the left are emotionally disturbed and have a big problem with the truth. Chief among them is the truth will unravel your world view and your reason for existence. You are insignificant and that fact frightens you. Al Gore MADE HIS FORTUNE FROM OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM. Now…he can make another one pretending to be an environmental virgin. While he is screwing everything that moves. Al Gore is a FRAUD on stilts and has more than his fair share of mental problems. That anyone would believe a thing he has to stay since he stands to make MILLIONS from this con tells you how stupid people can be. And they thought Bernie Madoff was a con man without equal? LOL. He ain’t got nothin’ on Fat Al. Fat Al is conning the UNIVERSE. Bernie never dreamed that big.
Jack Tracey,
I’m not a liberal or a conservitave. I’m not a democrat, a republican or an independant. I haven’t voted in twenty years. I don’t care who you marry. I don’t care what you decide to inhale, snort, swallow or inject. I don’t care where or if you go to church. As far as I’m concerned what you do in the privacy and comfort of your own home is your problem. Please, sir, please do have the common decency to leave me out of your activities.
Now, with all that said, how can you make the comment that you just made? The scientific method is, I form a hypothesis. I make a measurement that either confirms or condemns the hypothesis. I publish my findings. You review my findings, make your own observations and based on what you find you either support or reject my hypothesis. In the end we, you and I, compare notes and arrive at some conclusions.
In the words of Albert Einstein, “A thousand experiments can not prove me right but one experiment can prove me wrong.”
Regardless of your political orientation the behavior of this group engaged in this “study” is inexcusable. CRU got hacked. Good for the hacker(s). (God Bless Metasploit!) The CRU group has some very sharp-ended questions to answer.
In light of the CRU fiasco NASA and NOAA have decided to double down on unscientific behavior. One would think that especially in the information age that publishing raw data on the internet would be KISS simple. But what we get is more “elitist” behavior, “No you can’t see the data, it’s ours and you wouldn’t understand anyway.” What kind of answer is that? I resent being told to “Go Play” while the big people decide my future.
Last comment in regards to this mess, the USA and UK both have laws on the books in regards to “Freedom of Information” in regards to scientific research conducted with public funding. From what I’ve read there are FOI requests on this issue that are somewhere close to ten years old in regards to these datasets. Not only is the “science” tainted but from the outside looking in it would appear that crimes have been committed.
Conservitives have engaged in some fairly self destructive behavior in the past. Liberals have and from outward appearances are even now engaging in self destructive behavior. We have the internet at our dispoisal. We have in our possession the ability to analyze massive amounts of data in our own personal possession. We can transfer and process data at rates never before seen by the human race. Why can’t we, you and I or anyone else that wants to look, look at the raw data? I don’t think that request is untoward. I don’t think that asking to see the raw data is onerous in the least.
There is a faction afoot that is trying to panic me (and you) into an action that they desire. Is this action most benificial to you? (Or to me?) Let’s you and I take a mature and reasoned look at the matter. From my chair I say that in light of current events and the responses that have been made in response to these current events the answer is an emphatic “No.”
By the bye, you’re right. I’m a genuine “Gray Hat” arm chair hacker. There are payloads that you can enter into data collection fields, such as the one that I’m messing with right now, that force the application server to yield information.
Once I’ve collected some preliminary information such as server type and database type I can craft a set of payloads to the database to get it to dump it’s contents to files that I can then do with as I please. Like anything else, once you know how it’s easy.
Keep in mind though that hacking into somebody else’s server is a federal felony crime here in the US. The criminals with badges and guns will come and lock you up for a long, long, long time if you get caught. Remember the golden rule, “Thou mayest do as thou pleasest so long as you don’t getest caught.” So, use a proxy server, better yet chained proxy servers and make the IP address look like it came out of Russia. (That’s what I do, I use a proxy server in Russia for stuff that I do that I’d rather not be traced.) Even better use internet access down to the library or at the hotel or whatever. I can do as I please. It’s my planet you know.
@Jack Tracey: I am not a liberal, but your assuming that I was underscores my point. Funny, I do not even pretend to be in a position to properly assess all the science involved in the global warming debate.
But I observe the following: there is a mountain of evidence for global warming (you do not need to rely on climatologists; botanists and zoologists will tell you the same, having observed the northward migration of species in the last decades), and a pretty good theory that it is likely man-made. People who deny either the phenomenon itself or the conclusion that it is caused by human activity, on the other hand, are limited to pointing to little imperfections in the data, real or imagined. Strange that they are all conservatives. Why? The only ones not susceptible to the global brainwashing, by their superior reasoning skills or sobriety? Hardly.
@scythe: Thank you for proving my point. Global warming is not about Al Gore and who he is and what he has done. The world does not revolve around American politics and its particularly silly conservative/liberal tribalism, but this issue gets treated as if it did.
BTW, I am certainly not “on the left”.
Reading some of the above comments is a thoroughly depressing exercise. Global warming, a hoax, intended to de-industrialize the West and the US in particular? A liberal/internationalist conspiracy, concocted as a new way to bring about a world government? Al Gore’s shtick to make money and headlines? Vain scientists (who, being scientists, are presumably liberal) manipulating everything with the next research grant in mind?
How idiotically self-centered this is, how laughably obvious the connections to (some) conservatives paranoias and prejudices. The world does not revolve around American politics and its silly liberal/conservative tribalism, and all this cloud of stupidity emanating from those people who act as if it did makes it next to impossible to soberly discuss the issue. I do not claim to “know” what is right here, but I see one mountain of evidence on one side and – so far – piddling quibbles with details of a rather complicated issue on the other.
Lookit Heisel,
This is easy. If there’s not a problem with the sciencw then let’s get the data out and let’s everybody that’s intrested take a look. I don’t think that’s a tough concept to get your arms around, really.
Now, with that said, why is it that the data is not on the table? Why the subterfuge? What’s being hidden?
See Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear”…
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0061782661/
Terry Oldberg wrote:
“Everyone involved in the debate over public policy should understand the implication of Trenberth’s testimony….”
My problem Terry is that I *can’t* understand what Trenberth is saying there, and the only construction I can put on it is that he is basically weaseling around to avoid putting the IPCC’s work to the falsifiability test.
Maybe I’m missing something and I’d appreciate what seems your level of sophistication here, but this is my boggle:
That is, yes, okay, I understand there can be a theoretical difference between a “what if” projection based on differing “scenarios,” and a “model” that is making predictions.
But, damnit, the IPCC (with which Trenberth is a big part) has hardly been saying “oh gee folks, we’ve just been fooling around here with abstract possibilities so pay us no real mind,” have they?
Instead—and of *course*, given how seriously it tells us all to pay attention to it—the IPCC has essentially been saying “our projections/models based on the *current* CO2 load and based on the idea that such a load will increase as it has been is that X, Y and Z will *indeed* happen.”
Of *course* it has been saying that. And of *course* the scientists behind it like Trenberth haven’t just been fooling around but instead, trying to be relevant, have been issuing real world warnings, right?
So even to one like me who believes we are seeing warming and who is willing to say that yes, it’s somewhat man-made via CO2, this kind of statement from Trenberth is very troubling. It’s like they want it both ways: E.g., “Pay attention to what we say and indeed contort the entire earth’s way of living due to same, but oh my God no don’t impute any real *scientific* validity to what we say!
And it’s funny you mention Trenberth here especially given that one of *his* emails was amongst those leaked and it was one where he bemoaned what he himself called the “travesty” that their models just simply could not account for the fact that over the last decade the previous multi-decadal warming trend has *not* continued.
So once again then it’s clear that of *course* they’ve been trying to build predictive models. And while I have no problem with a scientist essentially saying “so far our models are far from perfect but we still believe they are on the right track,” I do have a huge problem with what can seem massively weasely crap like you quote Trenberth saying essentially denying they are trying to build scientific models at all.
–
For what it’s worth I’ve been getting into this of late given this “climategate” scandal and while I can say I’m pretty agnostic about *everyone’s* position two things have struck me overall:
Firstly, that there are way way too many “deniers” of this global warming stuff who go way overboard in believing that the good skeptics who are out there—and I’m thinking of folks like McIntyre and McKitrick and Lindzen—are indeed as far out there in denial as they are. Instead, one after another after I’ve looked into it, you see the people who have forced the IPCC and/or its scientists to make changes because they had good sound points are indeed not really deniers in the main but just good skeptics. Over and over again, while some may even fall into the full “denial” category, they admit that the full-bore AGW folks aren’t shooting total blanks and that there are some genuine issues out there.
So as regards this, for one, I’d say there is some evidence that an overly full-bore “denialist” position might be a very shaky one, being hijacked by people with a political agenda who point to valid skeptics but then pretend that their points go whole hog towards showing the entire AGW idea is baloney.
My other overall impression for what it’s worth is the flip side however which is that “climate science” is a very different kind of science in reality from, say, physics or chemistry or etc. Of course lots of this is due to its nature: there’s lots of genuine scientific fields whose nature doesn’t exactly lend them to the classic, Popperian kind of form. While you can’t deny evolution, for example, no one would say that its believers have to be held to predicting exactly how humans are going to further evolve for instance. It’s just too complex.
However, I also get a terrible sense of political/aesthetic pollution in the climate science community that has lots of its members feeling that no, not only is their science different from, say, classical physics or other “hard” sciences that are susceptible to Popperian examination, but that in fact they shouldn’t even *strive* to meet the same standards as best as possible.
Has led to some very very sloppy stuff in my humble opinion, and then of course to these genuinely terrible thoughts like we see in these recently hacked/whistle-blown emails of hiding data, destroying same, and on and on.
In any event and again for what it’s worth them’s my impressions so far, although to be as transparent as possible about my own possible biases I will say that while I think there is some fair evidence for AGW I don’t think it’s anywhere near what ought to be required for the planet to start tearing itself apart economically because of it. The AGW folks always—and with some good reason—point to the money behind the “denialists. But my God no matter how much it really is coming from Big Oil and etc. it’s a freaking drop in the bucket compared to the kind of wealth transfers you see the lesser developed countries insisting on from us and therefore the possible “money bias” that exists in favor of the full-bore AGW agenda.
Cheers,
Jack Tracey summed it up nicely when he wrote “but you just can’t question the science.”When we discard opinions from those with political, social and economic motives (as we should) we clearly see the earth has been cooling.
I’m just a simple electrical engineer from middle America but that seems to be contrary to the original theory put forth when this charade started years ago.
If you persist in trying to tax me into homelessness based on an obvious lie I suggest you consider the inevitable backlash not to mention the long term damage for true environmental concerns.
@rick: so everything is an obvious lie and the earth has been cooling.
Obviously, glaciers all over the world are not melting, southern species – plants and animals – are not moving northward (as far as the northern hemisphere is concerned), apple trees are not blossoming up to three weeks earlier than a hundred years ago, habitations in Alaska and Siberia are not sinking into the formerly frozen mud and the north pole recently has not been free of ice for the first time in a rather long time. It’s all a conspiracy. Man, they must be impressively competent, those conspirators. And numerous.
Tony J,
Nice try, chief, but I got you.
J Phillips and FTM,
Sorry, I didn’t mean to get you.
FTM,
That’s pretty frightening.
Heisel,
Why is it hard to question the “pretty good” theory that humankind is causing the earth to change in drastic ways that threaten humankind? The theory is fostered by some experts, and it’s sustained by a large number of itellectuals, which are people who are at least somewhat familiar with the work of experts and who absorb and communicate typically conventional wisdom about that work. That includes scientists that are not experts in the subject.
FTM (who is probably hacking our computers right now) is correct that keeping raw information to oneself and only communicating findings doesn’t allow anything other than the dissemination of conventional wisdom.
So, why question the findings, motives or recommendations of proponents? Why take such an interest in the conventional wisdom on this subject, rather than say, molecular theory? Well, because many people in power (who all seem to be liberals, no offense) are recommending drastic changes to human society and commerce along the lines of shop-worn, collectivist programs. This sets off alarm-bells in the skeptical minds of real conservatives– the same minds… er mind you, that were sounding alarm bells when the last one-party rule was scaring people into surrendering their judgement.
Jack Tracey,
Don’t be afraid. Folks are getting better at configuring databases all the time. It’s not like you can craft a payload with some escape characters and manipulate a database any more. (Sometimes you can.) It’s evolution, they get better, we get better.
There are malicious people out there doing bad things. Hopefully they get caught sooner or later and get stuffed in a dungeon someplace and that’s that.
Regardless of political orientation remember that it was a hacker that brought this issue to light. Technically the hacker broke the law. Realistically though the hacker may have prevented a far worse evil. Instead of calling this guy (these people) hacker(s) let’s call the “hacktivists.”
The question no one, neither the proponents, nor the opponents of global warming are asking is: “When was the global mean temperature of the planet Earth ‘normal’?” What year, what decade, what century can we point to and say “Any deviation from this standard is abnormal.”? The answer is akin to anyone trying to decide what point is the center of the Universe. There isn’t one. The earth has been fluctuating in temperature since the beginning. It is nonsensical to point to a particular time and call it normal. Why doesn’t anyone see that? And if there isn’t a time when the temperature was normal, how can we say it is abnormal now, or ten years from now, or 25 billion years from now. There can be no such thing as global warming without a standard to compare our current temperatures (even if there wasn’t a fasification of the data) against. Any of you believers in the religion of Global Warming care to enlighten me?
Kenneth Weinkauf wrote:
“The earth has been fluctuating in temperature since the beginning. It is nonsensical to point to a particular time and call it normal. Why doesn’t anyone see that?”
Everyone does, not least the geologists. It’s just implicitly understood that, however “artificially” a context you wish to view it, we are talking about possible climate change during the age of modern humans and the issues this raises and not that of climate change during the age of all rocks. Or would you hold that there would be nothing to be concerned about if in a mere one hundred years or so the earth was to return to being either one giant snowball or one giant fireball, both of which states it once enjoyed?
I think the AGW debate is kind of test of modern conservatism, maybe indeed whether it is or can be “modern” at all. Let’s face it, facts have long since made those who reject the main tenets of evolution/natural selection into kooks, and yet you still see those who still exist tending to find a home within conservatism.
So what’s going to happen with AGW? Very troubling since, in my view, so much of it does seem so shaky and it has so clearly has been seized upon by those with ulterior agendas such as anti-Westernism or etc.
Tough to keep a cool head in such circumstances.
On the other hand I believe most scientists do believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it does somewhat beggar belief that with all the crap we humans have pumped into the air since the start of the Industrial Revolution and with all that is going to be pumped into it in the near future by China and India with their billions of people that no, none of this could affect anything.
I’d also observe that I think conservatism, not just wrongly but incredibly stupidly, was essentially bought off the wonderful legacy that Teddy Roosevelt tried to establish for it by indeed saying that there ought to be a limit to human “progress” when it threatens the natural wonders of the world, and that above all real “conservatism” does indeed mean the desire to conserve something.
Almost no matter how “Republican” or “conservative” they may seem to be, you talk to your average suburbanite and ask him or her how they feel about logging off every last old-growth forest or the Amazon, or allowing condos on every inch of every vacation lake and see how fast you find them much more in touch with the Democrats than you ever believed.
Doesn’t mean “conservatism” ought to buy into AGW; indeed one can argue that AGW just distracts terribly from alleviating many more real or more imminent environmental problems. But what I think I see so far is modern conservatism not only getting knee-jerk ready to reject AGW, but then also and as regards every other environmental issue stay on the side of those who for the quickest buck would pave over Yellowstone if they could.
Hasn’t conservatism under George Bush has already gone a long-enough way towards committing mindless suicide?
No climate scientist anywhere, or for that matter, no bright middle school student, thinks there is a ‘normal’ temperature of the Earth. The global warming issue is about whether Earth is warming rapidly due to man made causes. Whether the Earth is warmer or cooler is a matter of indifference except how it affects mankind. Some species will expand their range, some may become extinct. It’s happened before. The concern about GW is that warming and rising sea levels will have impacts that will be undesirable on a macro scale – dislocation of populations, etc.
Our bright middle school student knows the Earth is about 2/3 water. How much of that water is ice makes the level of the oceans rise or fall. We know that during the last ice age ocean levels fell so much that Asia and North America were joined, which is why we have casinos today.
Glaciers are in retreat globally. Both polar ice caps are shrinking. It doesn’t require a FOIA request to determine these facts. For ice to be turning into water at both poles, and at high elevations globally, I’d guess average temperatures are on the upswing. If you believe otherwise, please present a peer reviewed theory as to how ice might melt given the same or lower temperatures. The globe is not generally cooling – it’s warming. Ocean levels have been measurably rising for at least 100 years. If the elites are causing all this merely to support the GW hypothesis, my advice is those aren’t elites you want to mess with.
You can certainly model whether CO2 will trap solar energy. You can certainly measure how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, and whether the concentration is rising. If it is, probably the planet will get warmer. We know how much gas is in the atmosphere, we probably have a good idea how much CO2 gets dumped in every year … can’t model that? I bet you can.
The vision, suggested by this post’s author, of Reagan hating elites pimping GW as a money making enterprise, brutalizing helpless entities whose livelihood comes from extracting carbon from the ground (Exxon, BP etc) is very amusing.
There’s far more evidence to suggest that pot smoking causes adult onset psychosis, as demonstrated by Al Gore’s delusional poetry, than there is proof that global warming even exists. It takes an IQ greater than one’s shoe size to pen something comparable to poetry, yet in addition to his substantial carbon footprint, Al Gore stands to net billions of US dollars for his global warming scam, upon none of which will he pay taxes.
In 1971, I first encountered the GLOBAL WARMING CULT. Terry McAuliffe was pushing the fledgling global flooding ideology out of a cleverly named unisex-clothing shop called Hang-Ups, in a converted African American Church, acquired under false pretenses and wittily christened THE ARK, on South Patrick Street, in Alexandria, Virginia. As a live music venue, THE ARK would easily eclipse New York’s already famous Fillmore East, but folded a short time later due to corrupt business practices.
Although persuasive, the global flooding argument didn’t ring true. I knew that NASA, the military and government agencies did extensive climate research, and said as much. If global warming could melt the polar ice caps and thus cause global flooding by 1976, the alarm should come from the aforementioned sources. Perhaps not coincidentally, by 1976 the Earth’s fossil fuel deposits would also be depleted. It was a grim scenario. Terry McAuliffe, who probably named THE ARK himself, took me aside and explained, when it came to global warming; you couldn’t trust the government.
As we know, 1976 came and went without a global catastrophe. I still had that $45-dollar pair of striped slacks just like Hillary’s. I don’t know which was worse. I never regretted being booted from the cabal (I was hardly ever in), and never expected to run into Terry or his disciples again, especially decades later in sunny California. Yet there they were on the Central Coast, whistling the same old tune with some major new variations. They’d applied the global warming hysteria to higher education. Like global warming itself, education now became a massive fraud scheme designed to enrich the GLOBAL WARMING CULT. By 1995, The Brethren Of The Coast had grown exponentially. There would be much more to manmade global warming than mere water spotting: http://theseedsof9-11.com
First off, this comment made me LOL quite hard
“We know that during the last ice age ocean levels fell so much that Asia and North America were joined, which is why we have casinos today.”
Secondly, what we know as civilization dates back only 8,000 or so years and is based on a very stable climatic situation in the inter-glacial period we are currently in. Putting aside the sources of the current trends ( melting glaciers, species migration/loss ), the question is really about the effects of said trends on civilization itself.
About the only fact that is clear in the whole “climate change” debate is that global temperatures ebb and flow like tides, only over the course of years.
What the clever socialists and cynical “public servants” are doing is declaring of the flow tide (global warming): “We’re being inundated by water. Quick, pay us plenty to prevent the village from being flooded!” And when the tide stops of its own accord, they’ll declare: “Thank God we were here!”
They perform the inverse on the ebb tide. (As recently pointed out here, there was an orchestrated “global cooling” scare back in the 1970’s.)
As government grows ever bigger so that there are ever increasing numbers on the public payroll whose fat paychecks and benefits are dependent upon its largess, the hysterical bleating and elaborate swindles designed to extract from the hapless taxpayers the ever increasing operating funds necessary to sustain it grow exponentially in both number and sophistication, as well.
The orchestrated pandemic “global warming” hysteria may be the most sophisticated scam in terms of ambition yet (following upon the heels of the orchestrated “war on terror” hysteria).
I wouldn’t be surprised if most of the “consumers” and defenders of global warming theory have their hands directly in the public till in some way, shape or form. University bureaucrats and professors, for example. They then use their “authority” to declare that man-made global warming is a reality.
Not a bad grift for the Marxist-shyster types who go in for those kinds of things.
The fact that Al Gore is a liar, is I think we all can agree, settled science:
http://www.sphere.com/world/article/al-gore-fudges-numbers-at-climate-change-summit-in-copenhagen/19281919
Thank you Mr Tracey but unnecessary. You are trying to subvert the truth not me.
I am new to this bloggy game but it seems to me that some very basic physics is wanting in US schools.
The world is certainly composed, vastly, of water (mrmetrowest) but the idea that huge areas of melted floating ice could raise global sea levels would utterly have astonished Archimedes. Try ice in your G&T and observe.
Only when, not if, the land based ice melts will we, possibly, experience an excess of water. But then greenies say we are going to run out of water because of AGW… Man will as usual solve a merely technical problem. Buy shares in de-salination plants now!
The IPCC is NOT a scientific body. It is a self-serving bureaucracy. None of the reports that ‘our’ rulers read contain any science. They read the ’summaries’. Details would confuse them. The IPCC was set up by the UN which notoriously tends to the dishonest and it is fed (like some great Moloch) the titbits that the CRU, the Hadley centre (both UK based) and that proven magician of the ‘hockey stick’, Mann, decide to feed it.
The world is getting warmer. It’s not surprising for it is still emerging from the fourth ice age. Anyone acquainted with the laws of thermodynamics will also know that, given a continuous source of heat, eg the sun, the rate of warming will increase as the cold mass shrinks. Only for a minor fraction of the Earth’s existence has it had ice at its poles.
Without CO2 we would all die. Hydroponic farms insure that there are, at least, 1000ppm of CO2 in their ‘tents’. AGWers are wingeing about the c.400ppm we have at the moment. Trees and plants just love CO2!
Finally, so-called ’sudden’ increases in CO2 levels have ALWAYS occurred AFTER warm/hot periods. The ice core samples taken by the very promoters of AGW tell us that.
I did not suggest that ‘huge areas of melted floating ice’ would raise sea levels, kind of like ice cubes in a glass raises the level of fluid in the glass. Did anyone else? J Philips, your straw man has no brain. Ice currently locked at the poles or in glaciers becomes water, flows into the ocean, and raises sea levels. During the last ice age, sea levels were significantly lower than today because the ice caps had expanded so much. No one but the most blinded ideologue disputes any of that.
Your points about CO2 are also irrelevant. Algae thrives in sewage choked water, but other forms of life don’t. A hotter planet will be good for some species. The concern is the effect on the quality of life for some species, most notably humans, will be negative.
Try responding to the arguments people are actually making, not the ones you wish they were making.
Terry Oldberg wrote:
“Everyone involved in the debate over public policy should understand the implication of Trenberth’s testimony….”
TomB wrote:
My problem Terry is that I *can’t* understand what Trenberth is saying there, and the only construction I can put on it is that he is basically weaseling around to avoid putting the IPCC’s work to the falsifiability test.
Terry Oldberg’s response:
One is on weak grounds in speculating on Trenberth’s motives, for Trenberth does not exactly reveal them by his comments. Without speculating on these motives, it can be said that the effect of policies championed by Trenberth, the IPCC and many other “scientists” of the climatology establishment is to avoid putting the IPCC’s work to the falsifiability test. In the construction of a legitimate science, falsifiability is the first requirement.
Terry Oldberg wrote:
“One is on weak grounds in speculating on Trenberth’s motives, for Trenberth does not exactly reveal them by his comments.”
Well I dunno about this Terry. I could easily say that you’re right, motive is irrelevant, especially since you have now come around to agree with my point that the *effect* of what he said seems to have been an attempt to avoid falsifiability.
But, not to pick nits, there is also the matter of basic trust involved in this issue now where motives do become important. E.g., can we trust *anything* that any of these IPCC climatologists have been saying to us for so long now? And so I would note that while of course Trenberth didn’t explicitly announce his motive it seems to me not entirely unreasonable to have some suspicions of same given, as you agree, the *effect* of what he was urging was not a good thing. (Again, avoiding falsifiability.)
Moreover, Trenberth is also further mentioned in one of those hacked emails wherein Phil Jones is seen bragging to someone about how he was going to try to keep some research papers out of an IPCC report: “Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Not exactly confidence-enhancing vis a vis Trenberth, true?
One of the major reasons I think that basic trust is particularly important with this climate science business is in fact precisely because of somewhat disagreeing with something else you wrote:
“In the construction of a legitimate science, falsifiability is the first requirement.”
As I said earlier this seems to me too strict a definition by far if taken too literally. Physicists (hopefully) will never be able to reproduce the Big Bang to non-falsify their idea that it happened. But I don’t think the lack of that requirement makes what they are doing non-science. And as I also said some clear sciences just don’t lend themselves to strict non-falsifiable tests by their nature. How do you “falsifiably” test scientific theories about the course of evolutionary changes for instance?
In this vein then too I think climate science is a science even though it will never likely be susceptible to strict falsifiabilty tests. Thus it seems to me all the more important that we can trust that the climate scientists don’t have ulterior motives in stating their findings and recommendations. We will never be able, for instance, other than by simple waiting, to “falsify” some climate model. But what if such a model had been 99% accurate for some long preceeding period of time, and said that if we didn’t do X what would happen next would be terrible for us?
No one would say we should wait until things got that certain because we hadn’t done a falsifiability test on it, and so of necessity we would have to rely to a goodly degree on simply trusting climate scientists. In other words, trusting their motives. Hence, those motives do become important.
A lot of chatter aboput the IPCC.
IGNORING that this is part of a larger pattern:
The UN identified “climate change” as a vehicle for transfer of wealth, back in the days when they thought we were headed to an Ice Age (we probably are, in 15 to 50 k years, but that is too slow for the alarmists).
The story has changed (relative to “settled science”), but the motivations have remained constant (takeover by libs, and xfer of wealth.).
How many of your parents and grandparents patiently waited out the “scientific” explanations of “settled science” where “particulate matter” caused by “US Industry” was preventing the Sun’s heat from reaching the Earth’s surface?
How many have bothered to investigate the fraud by NASA over the last 15 years (with a provable link to GORE)?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/
Dishonest libs want to control the Nation’s morality by controlling your person and property.
Dishonest conservatives (CONs?), want to control the marketplace, to relieve you of your wealth.
On both side of the political spectrum, political crooks are personally enriching themselves, their families, and their political supporters.
LACK OF FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY should be a jailable offense, RETROACTIVELY!!!! Let us begin to build our political tent under this first simple banner.
TomB:
A semantic problem hinders our communication. The word “science” comes down to us from the Latin word “scientia” meaning “demonstrable knowledge.” In my remarks, I attach these semantics to the words “science” and “scientific.”
The philosopher of science Karl Popper translates “demonstrable knowledge” into logical form by stating that no model is “scientific” unless it is “falsifiable.” This signifies that every scientific model can be proved wrong by observations.
The requirement for falsifiability implies that there are models which are not scientific models. Among these, under Trenberth’s testimony, are the IPCC’s models.
Trenberth’s testimony is corroborated by the testimony of a reviewer of the IPCC’s reports,Dr. Vincent Gray, in a posting on the Web.
In my postings on this blog, I’ve sought to warn readers of a mistake that can be made in evaluating the arguments for and against regulation of carbon dioxide emissions. The mistake is to confuse a model built by scientists with a scientific model. By the semantics of “scientific,” a model is scientific if and only if it is falsifiable; whether or not it is built by people with scientific credentials is irrelevant to the issue.
Often, the argument is made that we should believe in the IPCC’s models because a “consensus” of scientists express confidence in them. This is an example of an argument from authority. Under the methodology of science, though, argument from authority is illegitimate. Under the methodology of science, the only legitimate grounds for belief in a predictive model are that this model has been repeatedly tested by observation of independent events and the predicted outcome has matched the observed one in every such event. According to Trenberth and Gray, though, the IPCC models do not make predictions. The conclusions follow that: a) the IPCC’s models are not falsifiable and b) the IPCC’s models are not scientific models.
In the debate over regulation of carbon dioxide emissions, I observe virtually universal confusion of a model built by scientists with a scientific model. This confusion may lead us into a decision on policy that lacks scientific backing but that seems to journalists, businessmen, political leaders, environmentalists and ordinary citizens to possess scientific backing.
By the way, in stating that the IPCC’s models do not make predictions, Dr. Trenberth is not deserving of censure but rather of praise, for he tells a truth and this truth may be contrary to his self-interest. Plenty of other individuals and organizations are deserving of censure. Among the latter is the IPCC.
According to Gray, he provided the IPCC with review comments in which he pointed out that the IPCC’s models did not make predictions, hence were not falsifiable and could not be validated. “Prediction” is a statistical term which designates a proposition stating the outcome of a statistical event.”Validation” is a statistical term which signifies that a model has been repeatedly tested by observation of a number of independent statistical events and the predicted outcome has matched the measured one in every such event. Gray states that he raised the issue of how the IPCC’s models could be tested.
According to Gray, the IPCC responded to his comments by changing the word “prediction” to the word “projection,” and the word “validation” to the word “evaluation.” The IPCC did not respond on the issue of how the IPCC’s models could be tested. The words “projection” and “evaluation” are statistically meaningless in the sense of failing to identify how the associated models can be falsified through testing.
The most recent IPCC Summary for Policy Makers, dated in 2007, implies that policy should be based upon projections of the global average temperatures made by the IPCC’s models. The Summary provides no warning to policy makers that a projection is not the equivalent of a prediction or that the models that make these projections are not scientific models because they cannot be validated. As the IPCC report makes it plain that these models were built by scientists, the content of the IPCC’s report is highly conducive to misleading scientifically naive journalists, politicians and others to the false conclusion that science tells us that carbon dioxide emissions will lead to catastrophic global warming if these emissions are not regulated. Having once believed that the United Nations offered us the best hope for peace on Earth, I am disturbed and dismayed by this evidence of corruption in a UN agency.
[...] Why the Global Warming Hoax? [T]here were some real brains with other motives for promoting the lies. Extreme environmentalism has become the new socialism, an excuse for dictatorial rule to limit consumption and justify highly centralized government power “to save humanity.” Below is a list of quotes from leading leftists. There were brains behind it all, the old socialists looking for a new justification for government takeover of the economy, for a “planned” economy which they would plan and manage. Man-made global warming became the substitute agenda for Leftists who had been discredited by Reaganomics and the collapse of communism. [...]
While I consider myself conservative (family values, politics, etc.) I am NOT an opponent of global warming/climate change. I have lived in a far northern town in the US, and I’ve seen gradually warming winters over the past several decades. Now for most people who hate cold weather that probably sounds like a boon; less snow, more time to play. Well, not if your job depends on cold weather like mine does; our family business needs the seasonal changes for its livelihood. As the climate warms where we are, we’ve seen our salmon population decrease dramatically. Changing water temperatures are driving the salmon away, and so goes our business. I wish conservatives would stop assuming that all of their adherents were alike; we aren’t. I’m fiscally conservative but more environmentally moderate since the environment has a big impact on my livelihood and income. Maybe that’s why some people move from conservativism to libertarianism?
I’m not sure if global warming is true or not. I tend to think that more scientist agree with it than scoff at it. And that’s probably where the debate should be conducted. In the whelm of science.
Unless you are actively engaged in scientific research into global warming, your opinions are no better than Al Gore…another armchair climatologist.
If you have cancer you don’t turn to blogger or politician like Gore or a pundit like Beck to diagnose and suggest a cure.
You turn to a doctor…and not just any doctor but an oncologist who specializes in the. If 10 oncologist in different parts of the world say you have cancer and 1 oncologist says “It’s just in your head”, who would you believe???
Of course you could conclude that oncologist around the world are just trying to generate work for themselves…so they are conspiring together to deliver bad news. Is it possible?? Maybe but not likely
The debate on global warming isn’t a political debate where if you are Republican you think it’s a Hoax and if you are a DEMOCRATS believe its true. That’s a pretty stupid and silly position to take.
So scientists made up global warming (which is clearly supported by basic science-a fool could understand it) just to go to expensive dinners? *Gasp* That’s makes just about as much sense as George W. Bush being allowed to become America’s president! Twice!
When will radical conservatives understand that climate change is not a power play, but a genuine attempt to help our dying planet? I fear for our future…
[...] 2009 December 25 by cmblake6 I mentioned this a day or so ago, Freedom Fighter and I were talking about THIS POST last night at [...]
There is another factor in the globalwarming debate: very often, global warming is used as an excuse for waging economic warfare against oil-rich Arab and Muslim countries.
Nearly any article Thomas Friedman publishes about the subject will include a reference to the advantages of energy independence from Muslim countries. His articles will usually include a call for non-fossil fuels and 50-cent-per-gallon tax increases on gasoline, a policy that has little effect on Friedman personally as he is an upper income America living in a city with excellent mass transportation. I also notice that he never once addressed global warming when promoting the Iraq war even though such a war woud no doubt result in an increased use of fossil fuels.
Rather, this policy affects the rural poor most severely as they often lack access to public transportation, have lower average incomes, and must drive longer distances.
I don’t know whether the earth is warming or not–it does seem to be–but that doesn’t change the fact that the policy elites are proposing solutions that disproportionately effect lower income Americans.
The evidence that global warming/climate change is happening, and that CO2 produced by the burning of fossil fuels is a significant cause, is overwhelming. The hacked/stolen e-mails were taken out of context and twisted into a conspiracy by the well-funded deniosphere. The whole anti-global warming movement in this country has become an assault on reason and science. The ideologues who work these sites (Sen. Inhofe, James Morano, Monckton, et al), blinded by their ideology, have no interest in truth, and use psuedo-science and junk science to further their cause, intentionally misleading and sowing confusion. For only one end; to delay, delay, delay, any real steps to reducing our nation’s CO2 output. In effect, they have put short term profits of the fossil fuel industry ahead of the long-term future of the nation. The longer we delay, the more likely draconian solutions become our only recourse.
Jon,
I absolutely agree the Left uses this for its own purposes. But that is true of any issue that is left to the Left.
If the Right were pushing it, or piling onto it, it would figure out how to use it for opposite purposes. Like maintaining 1st World hegemony in the world, Pat Buchanan-type protectionism against outsourcing to reckless emitter countries like China, a carbon-inputs tariff. (3rd World is 3.9 more ‘emissions intensive’ than 1st World, that is, it emits 3.9 times as much per unit of GDP. An honest green reason to favor 1st World, particularly in matters of production. It’s in consumption that we can be blamed.)
if both wings piled on, the two would cancel out. Maybe then we’d get something close to objective, honest policy proposals for dealing with the matter. Including lots of research into technologies for producing artificial cooling or global air conditioning, and no more of the Western guilt payments or global equalization stuff. Equality is obviously harmful to ecology, equalization is like destruction of biodiversity and space for experimentation.
As it stands, the ground has been ceded to the Left, and as long as the Left is writing the script, the West is of course expected to end up holding the bag for all the costs.
best,
Ira
I had an idea the other night……what if this is all part of a plan to induce another ice age, which would effectively remove a huge number of people from this planet, which is one of their main goals, population reduction. What if we reduce our CO2 output and that causes the planet to cool too much bringing about another small ice age or worse, one that lasts a thousand years, which has happened in the past.
Its not too far fetched when you consider the evil people who run this planet and their agenda for all of us.
The ultimate purpose of the “global warming” bandwagon crowd is basically the redistribution of wealth, as a “new wave” of socialism, after earlier efforts from the 1960’s failed. That is why “Copenhagen” resulted (or seems to have resulted) in some promises that prosperous countries like Canada would bail out the developing countries. That this is done to our own detriment, is evident.
With the current very cold weather in the much of the northern hemisphere, (with e.g. 877 new snowfall records set last week in the USA) and record lows in Europe, perhaps some “real science” is needed, based on unbiased data and the lack of creating or promoting fear where it is not needed. A perfect place to re-start our thinking would be God’s promise that “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, and day and night shall not cease.” (Gen. 8:22).
This all does not mean that stewardship of the natural and physical environment around us is not important. It is important; in fact, I would suggest that those who believe the above text, can be the only real environmentalists. Because this truth is not a hoax, it will be as valid in 2010 as it was in 2009 and has always been. In this light, I would like to wish you and your readers a very prosperous New Year from Langley, British Columbia, Canada. (Yes, when I read the names of Christine Stewart and Maurice Strong, I once again realized that Canadians have been duped.)
The reason for the lie is that climate change is coming and theyre hiding it behind the chemtrails every day globally. This is what NASA announced they found in 1983 then lied about. This is what all the ancient calendars are telling us about. This is also what the Bible tells is the warning for the war of Armageddon which will see America destroyed by Russia, China and the SCO the day of the next false flag to invade Iran. News here: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/6519605/WarNews
This isn’t a hoax my intellectually challenged friends. Humans are pumping all of the stored organic matter from the past millennia, burning them, and injecting the waste into the atmosphere. This is not anything remotely close to a natural process of nature, and while the earth will absolutely still be there when the full effects of climate change are in play civilization as you know it certainly will not. You can choose to ignore it, spread misinformation, but you will still continue to see those in the educated communities push to stop consumption of fossil fuels. None of you would stand a chance in any real debate on the subject. If you don’t believe me then why not call up some of the leading minds on the subject of climate change (who you’re certain are all conspiring to lie to the population of the world) and challenge them to a debate? Why not choose to quit hiding behind your menial and insignificant blog? I suspect I know the answer, and so do most educated people.
I’m not swayed by an article comprised of quotes that may or may not be taken out of context.