The Great Green Fraud

I have noticed that the major media STILL don’t want to talk about it.

I guess the Liberals have another reason to hate FOX, as they are the only ones covering the story. 🙂

Yet, despite the seriousness of this issue, as well as a prominent Senator calling for hearings to investigate it, America’s television news organizations appear to be actively boycotting this growing controversy. (NewsBusters)

But, of course, that senator is a Republican. So they can ignore him. He’s just a rightwing nutjob, after all. 🙂

There is “virtually no possibility” of a few scientists biasing the advice given to governments by the UN’s top global warming body, its chair said today.

Rajendra Pachauri defended the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the wake of apparent suggestions in emails between climate scientists at the University of East Anglia that they had prevented work they did not agree with from being included in the panel’s fourth assessment report, which was published in 2007.

“The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report,” he said.

This reminds me of the Fake letter about George W Bush’s war deferment where the defenders to this day say, “The letter was fake but what was written was factual”.

So what happens if it was not just a “few” scientists???

Whoops, maybe that’s an Inconvenient Orwellian Possibility. 🙂

Phil Jones (CRU),”keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

Nah…The Religion rolls on.

I was amused by Ed Begley Jr on Cavuto (you can find the meltdown on You Tube). Mr super green ranted and raved about only believing peer-reviewed science.

I guess he missed the email where they talk about changing the rules for peer-reviewed science and talk of boycotting publications that tow their party line.

Phil Jones (CRU),”keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

Though, for people like Mr Begley who are deep in the religion of Global Warming,  reason is no longer an option because that questions their faith. So much so that he was ranting about the quality of the air in LA during the interview as an example of something no one wanted to do but was forced to do anyhow.

But it doesn’t have anything to do with Global Cooling…Global Warming…Global Climate Change…Climate Change.

But it does have everything to do with force.

And the Orwellian way, apparently, that the all-hail the vaunted “peer review” process has been corrupted by one side of the argument is not an issue.

That’s not science.

That’s politics. The immensely respected former British chancellor of the exchequer, Nigel Lawson, had great difficulty finding a publisher for his expose of these matters, An Appeal To Reason, A Cool Look at Global Warming, such is the pressure the eco-lobby can assert. He believes Green is the new Red, the anti-capitalists taking over the relatively inoffensive tandem bicycle of naturalists, and turning it into a nihilistic juggernaut, the treads having been blown off their great Red Marxist tank that careened through the world for most of the last century. The ecoextremists allow the conservationists and butterfly collectors and Sierra Clubs to front their activities, just as the pacifist naifs were often the witless dupes and “useful idiots” (in Lenin’s words), of the Communists.

As Lord Lawson wrote in his book, those worried about imminent environmental catastrophe, as compared, for examples, to nuclear terrorism or even large meteoric collisions, “need not worry about saving this planet. They are already living on another one … We appear to have entered a new age of unreason … It is from this, above all, that we really need to save the planet.”

Two of Canada’s greatest and most undersung recent heroes are environmental economist Ross McKitrick and statistical minerologist Steven McIntyre, who by their tireless research in the teeth of the entire ecological establishment, proved the former IPCC claim of drastically accelerated global warming was a fraud. These men have been prominently mentioned in the hacked emails that have just revealed the outrageous lengths the scientific propagators of the Great Green Fraud have gone to to suppress the facts.

Michael Schlesinger, a climatologist at the University of Illinois, a bringer of the Faith, in the New York Times, “The absolute worst thing that humanity could do is mistake a short-term natural cooling for the absence of human-caused global warming and, in so doing, not transition as soon as economically possible from the fossil fuel age to the post-fossil fuel age.

To make this mistake would leave a legacy of global warming for our children, grandchildren and multiple generations thereafter which they likely could not reverse, and for which they would likely not forgive us.

This we must not do.”

What about the debt, the loss of freedom, the jobs, the loss of rationality?

And it’s not been proven that it will even work.

But it will feel good.

And it’s a “Crisis”.

“You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”-Rahm Emanuel, White Chief of Staff.

On (Last) Tuesday,’s top story was, “Worse Than the Worst: Climate Report Says Even Most Dire Predictions Too Tame”

There’s even less time for humanity to try to curb global warming than recently thought, according to a new in-depth scientific assessment by 26 scientists from eight countries.

Sea level rise, ocean acidification and the rapid melting of massive ice sheets are among the significantly increased effects of human-induced global warming assessed in the survey, which also examines the emissions of heat-trapping gases that are causing the climate change.

“Many indicators are currently tracking near or above the worst-case projections” made three years ago by the world’s scientists, the new Copenhagen Diagnosis said.

Nor has manmade global warming slowed or paused, as some headlines have recently suggested, according to the report, which you can see here.

The Thought Police binders are firmly in place. And  Chicken Little is happy.

I have no doubt this started out as a well-meaning crusade. But that was a long time ago. In a Non-Partisan galaxy, far far away…

The case for global warming rests on “all kinds of evidence,” says climate scientist Don Wuebbles of the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign. “Look at what’s happening to ice in the Arctic. Explain that as ‘no global warming.’ It doesn’t take a genius to see, obviously, warming is happening, e-mails or not.” (USAToday)

Putting aside how condescending that statement is, can he explain the Patagonian glacier in Argentina THAT IS GROWING???

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina – Argentina’s Perito Moreno glacier is one of only a few ice fields worldwide that have withstood rising global temperatures.

Nourished by Andean snowmelt, the glacier constantly grows even as it spawns icebergs the size of apartment buildings into a frigid lake, maintaining a nearly perfect equilibrium since measurements began more than a century ago.

“We’re not sure why this happens,” said Andres Rivera, a glacialist with the Center for Scientific Studies in Valdivia, Chile. “But not all glaciers respond equally to climate change.” (Newsmax)

or  In the Western Himalayas, a group of some 230 glaciers are bucking the global warming trend. ( 5/5/2009)

MOUNT SHASTA, Calif. —  Global warming is shrinking glaciers all over the world, but the seven tongues of ice creeping down Mount Shasta’s flanks are a rare exception: They are the only known glaciers in the continental U.S. that are growing.(Fox 2008)

Or won’t that be “reviewed”. 🙂

Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who have recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.

A new study of the Karakoram, Hindu Kush, and Western Himalaya mountain ranges by researchers at England’s Newcastle University shows consistent recent growth among the region’s glaciers.

Researchers found cooler summers are failing to melt winter snows, which are themselves becoming more frequent, resulting in advancing ice sheets.

The study was published in the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate.

Oh, look it was.

But the Religion rolls on.

Nothing to see here.

A March 14, 2005 report from the activist group World Wildlife Fund (WWF) claimed, “Himalayan glaciers are among the fastest retreating glaciers globally due to effects of global warming.”

The WWF said its report “reveals the rate of retreat of Himalayan glaciers accelerating as global warming increases.”

National Geographic, for example, reported on March 10,2006 that glaciers were shrinking throughout the Himalayas and that “these water supplies could eventually dry up as the glaciers melt due to global warming.”

But not if they are growing.


Guess we better just ignore that Inconvenient Truth. 🙂

Or maybe it takes an “idiot” to wonder if it man-caused at all or a “natural variation” as some global warming advocates call the lack of warming lately.

So maybe we do need so “useful idiots” to wonder if the agenda behind the rhetoric and “the consensus” is entirely above aboard.

We need a Reformation.

We Need Heresy.

We Need Truth.

Not Politics.




Be Thankful

ATR: This year we have much for which to be thankful: family, friends, and the Obama-Reid-Pelosi National Energy Tax (Cap and Trade) has not yet become law to name a few. We would like to remind you of 10 reasons you should be thinkful for that this year:

  1. We don’t have to pay over $100 billion in additional taxes.
  2. We don’t have to pay an additional $3.6 trillion in gas taxes.
  3. We won’t lose 1.1 million jobs between 2012 and 2030 and 2.5 million each year after that.
  4. We haven’t made new industries that are dependent on government handouts for their survival.
  5. We don’t have a new bureaucracy in place to allocate and sell carbon credits that will increase corruption and favoritism in Washington, DC.
  6. Our energy costs will not go up by $1500 per year for a family of four.
  7. We won’t have our national debt increase by 26 percent by 2030. An increase of $116,600 for a family of four.
  8. We won’t have protectionist tariffs to create trade wars and cause increased prices and shortages on the goods we need.
  9. We won’t have a reduction in GDP of $9.4 trillion between 2012 and 2030.
  10. We won’t have a 58% increase in gas prices

But 2010 is another matter.

Be Thankful that the media is saving you from hearing about the Global Cooling..Global Warming…Global Climate Change…Climate Change scam…

I found this on the reader comment section: 🙂

Remember now, fellow travelers. The facts really don’t matter as long as the IDEA and the MESSAGE are useful in the eyes of liberals. The so-called information presented by “scientists” is only meant to illustrate the problem, not prove it. Where have y’all been? If we hadn’t listened to the warnings about global cooling 25 years ago, the planet would be plunged into a new ice age by now. And look–we’re actually getting warmer! See, calling public attention to a problem really does work. So accept what these people are telling us, and before you know it, the planet will cool down again. We are all just too dumb to make decisions for ourselves. Yesterday: Mammograms for everyone, save the breasts! Today, uhm, not so much. Global warming will go the same route. Trust me!


ABC (still ignoring the real story and still obsessed with the couple who crashed the State Dinner LAST WEEK, so be thankful they know a real news story when they see it! 🙂

Some recent studies, including one by Britain’s Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research, indicate that global temperatures have plateaued during the past decade, which could undermine arguments that the Earth is undergoing a long-term warming trend because of the burning of fossil fuels. Phil Jones has denied manipulating evidence and said his comments were taken out of context.

Climate change skeptics “don’t have the science on their side anymore, so they’ve resorted to a smear campaign to distract the public from the reality of the problem and the need to confront it head-on in Copenhagen,” said Mann, professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University who was the recipient of several of the published e-mails.

But the pressure is getting to some people, even if the Media continues to ignore it with gusto:

Leading British scientists at the University of East Anglia, who were accused of manipulating climate change data – dubbed Climategate – have agreed to publish their figures in full.

But others:

Gavin A. Schmidt, a NASA climatologist involved in many of the e-mail exchanges, said that voluntarily disclosing more data would never satisfy the “very hard-bitten, distraught core” of climate skeptics. “The number of attacks on our integrity will actually increase since there will be more ways to twist what it is we do to support some conspiracy theory or other,” he said.

Mike Hulme, a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia and author of “Why We Disagree About Climate Change,” said the disclosures could offer a chance to finally bring the practices of climate researchers and the intergovernmental panel into the modern era, where transparency — enforced legally or illegally — is inevitable and appropriate.

“The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production,” he said in an e-mail message, “just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.”

Dr. Curry and others said that if nothing else, the e-mail correspondence suggested that climate scientists needed to show more temperance in dealing with their critics.

“We won the war — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, and climate and energy legislation is near the top of the U.S. agenda,” Dr. Curry said. “Why keep fighting all these silly battles and putting ourselves in this position?”

Ah, the condescending, snotty personal attacks of the liberal caught with his hands in the cookie jar.

I guess we can be thankful they never change. 🙂

American Thinker:

Jonathan Leake, writing in the UK’s Times Online, offers a balanced overview of the scandal and this fascinating point regarding the chronology of the “breaking” of the story:

It was a powerful and controversial mix – far too powerful for some. Real Climate is a website designed for scientists who share Jones’s belief in man-made climate change. Within hours the file had been stripped from the site.

Several hours later, however, it reappeared – this time on an obscure Russian server. Soon it had been copied to a host of other servers, first in Saudi Arabia and Turkey and then Europe and America.

What’s more, the anonymous poster was determined not to be stymied again. He or she posted comments on climate-sceptic blogs, detailing a dozen of the best emails and offering web links to the rest. Jones’s statistical tricks were now public property.

Note carefully the fact that this modern shot heard round the world first found a point of entry through Russia, then Saudi Arabia, and then Turkey – next Europe, and lastly the United States.

In other words, the traditionally supposed intellectual freedom and free speech climate of the West was “stoney ground” in comparison to the accessibility of outlets under the more repressive regimes of Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Perhaps the greater story is the truth itself – and its indomitable will to reveal itself through even the most unlikely of conduits and efforts of even one individual arrayed against a worldwide apparatus of dishonesty.

Jesus, in Luke 19:40, when admonished to silence the truth, made a startling claim about the geological record that collided with accepted scientific notions in His day:

And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

It would appear that the repression of truth in the scientic community and the Mainstream Media in the west has indeed caused “the stones to cry out.”

Be thankful for crying stones.

Now we just have to guard against crying wallets.

A Friendly Guide to Bureaucracy

Bureaucracy is the collective organizational structure, procedures, protocols, and set of regulations in place to manage activity, usually in large organizations and is represented by standardized procedure (rule-following) that guides the execution of most or all processes within the body;. A bureaucracy traditionally does not create policy but, rather, enacts it. Law, policy, and regulation normally originates from a leadership, which creates the bureaucracy to put them into practice. In reality, the interpretation and execution of policy, etc. can lead to informal influence. A bureaucracy is directly responsible to the leadership that creates it, such as a government executive or board of directors.As a matter of practicality, the bureaucracy is where the individual will interface with an organization such as a government etc., rather than directly with its leadership.

Midwest Voices: I suddenly realized how easy it might be to get “the bureaucracy” working for you. If there existed a “consensus” on what the greater good should be- and maybe even the means to get there (ends justifying the means) by the various ruling elites in this country (and/or world), then the few people willing to take a personal hit for justice might never get his or her message out due to the machinery of the bureaucracy working against them.

The bureaucracy doesn’t question orders or take the initiative to question assumptions. The bureaucracy obeys. And once the government bureaucracy gets moving in a certain direction it isn’t that easy to get it derailed- no matter how idiotic what they are doing seems. It is a self-licking ice cream cone, as some call it. Paradigms are not questioned nor directions changed- until maybe there’s a lot of embarrassing press and Congressional inquiries.

ClimateGate, challenging the “bureaucracy” and “the consensus” that the Global Warming Religionists have built up. And how the media is on board with the “consensus” and unwilling to question it.

Just like Health Care Reform.

Just Like ACORN.

Just Like Cap & Trade.

Just Like “terrorism”, a word a Liberal can’t even think let alone discuss.

The wheels of bureaucracy grind very slowly.

And when the media is in on it. It’s positively Orwellian.

IBD:  Here’s a dirty little secret about the New York Times: It likes to leak things. Important things. Things that change the course of the public conversation. From the Pentagon Papers to the ruined terrorist-surveillance programs of the Bush era, the Times has routinely found that secrecy is a danger and sunlight is a disinfectant.

Until now. A troublesome hacker recently released e-mails going to and from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain, e-mails that exposed how the “scientific experts” cited so often by the media on global warming are guilty of crude political talk, attempts at censoring opponents and twisting scientific data to support their policy agenda.

The e-mails prove just how dishonest this left-wing global warming agenda truly is.

And now suddenly, the New York Times has found religion and won’t publish these private e-mails. Environmental reporter Andrew Revkin, who’s more global warming lobbyist than reporter, quoted — sparsely — from the e-mails, but declared that he would not post these texts on his “Dot Earth” blog on the Times Web site: “The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.”

That rule didn’t apply to things like the disclosure of the Swift global bank monitoring program against terrorists.

Unlike our secret terror-fighting efforts, there is no grave matter of national security to protect here. There is only a danger of shredding the undeserved reputation of some global-warming alarmists as nonpartisan, nonideological, just-the-facts scientists with no preconceived environmentalist or statist agenda.

The networks also have ignored this emerging scandal with all the ignorance they could muster.

But in the seven days after the New York Times revealed the existence of an NSA program to monitor communications to terrorist cells abroad, the three networks ran a combined 23 stories about the program, more than one story, per network, per night.

How many have run stories on ClimateGate?

Virtually none, and the few, like CNN’s micro-mini blow-off is about what you get.

It doesn’t fit THEIR agenda.

Their bureaucracy.

Their “perceived wisdom”

Their “consensus”.

So it’s no big deal.

Charles Krauthammer:  The United States has the best health care in the world but, because of its inefficiencies, also the most expensive.

The fundamental problem with the 2,074-page Senate health care bill (as with its 2,014-page House counterpart) is that it wildly compounds the complexity by adding hundreds of new provisions, regulations, mandates, committees and other arbitrary bureaucratic inventions.

Worse, they’re packed into a monstrous package without any regard to each other. The only thing linking these changes — such as the 118 new boards, commissions and programs — is political expediency.

Each must be able to garner just enough votes to pass. There isn’t even a pretense of a unifying vision or conceptual harmony.

The result is an overregulated, overbureaucratized system of surpassing arbitrariness and inefficiency. Throw a dart at the Senate tome:

• You’ll find mandates with financial penalties — the amounts picked out of a hat.

• You’ll find insurance companies (who live and die by their actuarial skills) told exactly what weight to give risk factors, such as age. Currently insurance premiums for 20-somethings are about one-sixth the premiums for 60-somethings. The House bill dictates that the young shall now pay at minimum one-half; the Senate bill, one-third — numbers picked out of a hat.

• Y ou’ll find sliding scales for health-insurance subsidies — randomly picked — that will radically raise marginal income-tax rates for middle-class recipients, among other crazy unintended consequences.

The bill is irredeemable. It should not only be defeated. It should be immolated, its ashes scattered over the Senate swimming pool.

But the Bureaucracy demands to be fed. And the Democrats want to gorge it on 1/6 of GDP of this country.

They believe it benefits them.

The Frankenstein’s Monster of Bureaucracy will be created by them and they will be Frankenstein.

They will still have the illusion of being in control of it.

Even after the creature breaks out and terrorize everyone it won’t be their fault. 🙂

And considering they were off by on Medicare cost projections. They  were 1/9 of the reality and it’s getting worse every day. Can you imagine what this going to look like in your kid’s life time??

God help us all.

(oh, sorry left wingers that was a right-wing extremist evil Christian moment)

Allah Akbar.

Feel better now 🙂

Try Nate Silver, a statistician and liberal-media favorite, recently named one of Time’s 100 Most Influential People. He says scientists in this exchange were unethical:

“Dr. Jones, talking candidly about sexing up a graph to make his conclusions more persuasive. This is not a good thing to do — I’d go so far as to call it unethical — and Jones deserves some of the loss of face that he will suffer.”

But then he adds the typical liberal disclaimer: “Unfortunately, this is the sort of thing that happens all the time in both academia and the private sector — have you ever looked at the graphs in the annual report of a company which had a bad year? And it seems to happen all too often on both sides of the global warming debate.”

When conservatives are wrong, conservatives are wrong. When liberals are wrong, everyone does it, don’t you know?

It’s no big deal.

Nothing to see here.

Hey, did you remember Mark Foley? , wasn’t he just awful… 🙂

In another e-mail from Jones to Mann, the Washington Post reported, there’s talk of cutting skeptical scientists out of the official U.N. report: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

But you can’t take that literally, it was “out of context”. That’s not really what he said… 🙂

But Tea Bag Protests are all shills for Insurance Companies.

And anyone who denies the “consensus” on Global Warming must be a shill for the fossil fuels industry… 🙂

Fascinating, isn’t it folks.

This kind of censor-your-opponents activity ought to disgust a journalist who values openness and rigorous debate above all.

Every day the networks avoid this story, they’re saying they don’t really care about either of those values. In fact, they become willing accomplices in a cover-up of global proportions.

So what else aren’t they willing to tell you? Hmmmm…. 🙂

That is, after they get over their obsession with the couple who crashed the State Dinner, that is.

After all, that is really big news.

And ClimateGate is not.

And the formation of massive new bureaucracies is not either.

Nor is massive tax increases in a recession.

And we all know that bureaucrats are vastly more tolerant, kind, flexible, efficient, and more willing to help you out in a real crisis. 🙂

Don’t worry, be happy.

“Hope and Change” is on it’s way.



Hide the Truth! Beware the Leopard!

As the Mainstream Media works feverishly to ignore the fraud of Global Warming because the greatness of  “Hope and Change” in Copenhagen is coming…

Amid all this junk science, Coca-Cola has another campaign under way and, with other corporate biggies like Siemens and SAP, the software giant, has created an Internet campaign and Web site,, designed to enlist support for a climate deal to be reached in the very cold city of Copenhagen in December.

A petition on the site urges support for “developing countries’ adaptation efforts and secure climate justice for all.” It’s based on the theory that Western nations, particularly the U.S., owe the world a “climate debt” for starting the Industrial Revolution and plundering the world’s fossil fuels in the name of unbridled capitalism.

“The world needs a Green New Deal,” declares a pocket guide to Hopenhagen’s goals put out by the World Wide Fund for Nature, the group with the cuddly panda as its icon. That deal involves a global climate change fund into which rich countries pour money for “green” improvements in poorer nations.

The WWF guide says the Green New Deal “will be based on the polluter-pays principle, on the historically high emissions of developed nations and on the capacity of the rich nations to help the poor. And we will all benefit from this North/South ‘burden sharing.'” To us, this sounds like the old Marxist principle of to each according to his need, from each according to his ability, with a guilty conscience thrown in for good measure.(IBD)

From the “News” section of

Farmers who cut and burn trees in Brazil’s part of the Amazon River Basin cause less environmental destruction, than rich Western nations have done in the past, the Brazilian President says.

So the slash and burn of the Amazon Rain Forest that the environmentalists have been screaming about for decades is nothing compared to the Global Warming cause by Greedy Rich Western Nations. 🙂

If you follow the link it goes, unsurprisingly to the Copenhagen UN Global Warming website:

Brazil’s president said Thursday that “gringos” should pay Amazon nations to prevent deforestation, insisting that rich Western nations have caused much more past environmental destruction than the loggers and farmers who cut and burn trees in the world’s largest tropical rain forest.

President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva made the comments just before an Amazon summit in which delegates signed a declaration calling for financial help from the industrial world to halt the deforestation that causes global warming.

“I don’t want any gringo asking us to let an Amazon resident die of hunger under a tree,” Silva said. “We want to preserve, but they will have to pay the price for this preservation because we never destroyed our forest like they mowed theirs down a century ago.”

In Brazil, the word “gringo” does not only mean American, but generally refers to anyone from the northern hemisphere.

This would be the same President who just met with Iran‘s Dictator-in-Chief Ahmadinejad was scheduled to sign trade deals with President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva before visiting Congress and speaking at a university in Brasilia.

He also said the two nations believe that the international order should be revised.(Tehran Times)

So fork it over America, you greedy pigs!

IBD: Average Joe noticed how Al Gore and other Democratic politicians were quick to capitalize on the matter, even before the scientific community could speak with a unified voice on the issue.

He figured out, correctly, that politics rather than science was the force that put global warming on the front pages of the newspapers and on television every night.

And that the religion of  “the consensus” continues.

“The Consensus” doesn’t want to hear anything that endangers it.

And “The Consensus” can be very partisan.

Liberal Think Tank Environmentalist to the Stars (like Al Gore), Joe Romm:

It will be no surprise to learn the central point of their essay, ironically titled “Dangerous Assumptions” is “Enormous advances in energy technology will be needed to stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations at acceptable levels,” which is otherwise known as the technology trap or the standard “Technology, technology, blah, blah, blah” delayer message developed by Frank Luntz and perfected by Bush/Lomborg/Gingrich.

In other words, the Nature article was not what it claimed to be. It wasn’t an analysis suggesting that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change should revisit its assumptions about decarbonization. It wasn’t an argument for stronger technology policies. No, it was a devious Republican message – one designed by Republican pollster Frank Luntz during the Bush years – to delay action. (

Do you get the impression I do,that if you’re a liberal,  if you’re toaster burns your toast in the morning it was because it was made by a Republican just to piss them off! 🙂

Everything is political.

And thus, if the Truth is truly Inconvenient it must be hidden.

In The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Arthur Dent asks why the his house must be destroyed for a bypass only to find out that the plans for this were posted:

Arthur: “Oh yes, well, as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything.”

“But the plans were on display…”

“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”

“That’s the display department.”

“With a flashlight.”

“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”

“So had the stairs.”

“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”

“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display on the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.’”

So, no it’s time to brave the Leopard and see for yourself about the Bypass being built on your backs in Copenhagen.

Good Article:

And then, one is left to wonder why they felt the need to rig the game in the first place, if their science is as robust as they claim. If there’s an innocent explanation for that, we’d love to hear it.

But I fear, it’s just more burnt toast.

Brave the Leopard!

Greatest Turkey in Modern History

Happy Thanksgiving.

While the Mainstream press is obsessed to distraction with the couple who crashed Obama’s Hollywood style State Dinner…

I move  on to the star of the show, the turkey.

Over at, Gavin Schmidt, a modeler for the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has been downplaying the leak. Schmidt wrote: “There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research … no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords.”

Now doesn’t this sound like your typical liberal caught with his fingers in the cookie jar. Snarky, snotty, and over-the-top dismissive. And what an interesting mention of George Soros, the Billionaire Socialist behind

Fascinating. Like it came from a scripted playbook…

Yesterday, Professor Jones (Climatic Research Unit) refused to quit and denied that researchers had altered evidence to bolster the case for man-made climate change.

He added: ‘We absolutely stand by the science we produce here at the University of East Anglia and it has been peer reviewed and published.

‘Some of the emails probably had poorly chosen words and were sent in the heat of the moment, when I was frustrated. I do regret sending some of them. We’ve not deleted any emails or data here at CRU.

‘I would never manipulate the data one bit  –  I would categorically deny that.’

Me think he dost protest too much!

Jan 126,1998: Now, I have to go back to work on my State of the Union speech. And I worked on it until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you.- Pres. Bill Clinton

Yeah, we believed you Bill. 🙂

But yet again, a president doesn’t care, Politics and Agenda full steam ahead, damn the torpedoes!

Washington Post: The administration’s decision to identify a series of goals, including cutting emissions over the next decade “in the range of” 17 percent below 2005 levels, is a calculated risk, given that Congress has never set mandatory limits on greenhouse gases.

The figure amounts to a 5.5 percent cut below the 1990 levels that most countries use as a reference point, much less than what most other nations have called for. It is also less than what President Bill Clinton endorsed in the Kyoto talks in 1997 and well below the 25 to 40 percent cut that the European Union has asked of industrialized countries.

Richard Somerville of Scripps Institution of Oceanography; Michael Mann of Penn State; and Eric Steig of University of Washington – said that last week’s leaked emails controversy was apparently a part of a “smear campaign,” attempting to wreck the climate summit in Copenhagen next month.

Sounding Familiar yet? 🙂

Mann said: “What they’ve done is search through stolen personal emails—confidential between colleagues who often speak in a language they understand and is often foreign to the outside world.” He further added that the skeptics had largely turned “something innocent into something nefarious.”

So what language is that sir, Esperanto?

Classic attempt at diminishing the damage.

UK Telegraph: Met Office scientists called for urgent action on global warming and dismissed calls for a public inquiry into emails which suggest a conspiracy among international scientists to falsify data.

Although final figures will not be known until January, 2009 is likely to be the fifth hottest year on record, reversing a brief three-year “cold snap” caused by natural temperature fluctuations, they said.

So why aren’t the hotter temperatures, a “natural variation”?? 🙂

Because, then the whole farce would be exposed. So only “cold” is a natural variation. Of Course, in 1975 “Global Cooling” was going to kill us all. So I so man has changed a lot in 35 years!

Temperatures over the next decade will be even higher, Met Office models predict.

But not a “natural variation”…

The organisation estimates that in half of the next 10 years average temperatures will be higher than those seen in 1998, the warmest year on record.

Half?! Oh my GOD!  It’s a Crisis! Save the Women and Children!

Some up, some “variation”, but were all doomed if we don’t do something drastic right now!

It’s a Crisis!

The Sky is Falling!



“It does seem that people are going to extraordinary lengths to discredit the data that shows that global warming is happening and that it is man-made.”-Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office Hadley Centre.

Yeah, were using your OWN WORDS! 🙂

Or maybe that’s just a “variation”…

Now that’s just evil. 🙂

In one of the emails Prof Phil Jones, director of the unit, refers to a “trick” he used with raw data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures.

Last night he accused those who leaked the emails of a “concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change in the run up to the Copenhagen talks”.

Really? 🙂

Well, The President is off to Copenhagen again, hopefully he’ll be a successful as he as the last time he was there, when he came in last place for the Olympic bid for his boys in the hood in Chicago.

We can only Hope. 🙂


Ignorance is Bliss-The Global Warming Scam

“Officials at the University of East Anglia confirmed in a statement on Friday that files had been stolen from a university server and that the police had been brought in to investigate the breach,” the New York Times reports.

But that, and the vast majority of the Mainstream “Ministry of Truth” Media, is about all they want to report. They don’t want to talk about it.

Because, it’s a heresy against their faith.

Their Religion- Global Warming.

Kevin Trenberth, who heads the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.,”It is incontrovertible” that the world is warming as a result of human actions, Trenberth said. “The question to me is what to do.”

Dr. Kevin Trenberth, the head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and prominent man-made global warming advocate, wrote in an e-mail: “The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

Ah, the Faithful and a “scientist” to boot….He is one of the people in the emails contained in “Climategate” by the way. 🙂

Climategate being the leaking onto the internet of data and emails that shows that Man-Made Global Warming is a farce.

I have said in past blogs what a crock I think Global Warming is and have provided evidence. But as the British author and satirist Douglas Adams once said, “Proof denies faith” and the two last things the Global Warming faithful want is to be wrong, and to have to defend their faith against the proof that they are wrong.

If you try looking for the story of the files and emails that show a major cover-up of information from the faithful to preserve their faith at all costs you’ll not see much of anything on the Mainstream Media. Because, like Van Jones, ACORN,  and other stories that the Liberal Elite don’t want to to talk about they want to just crush it and hope it goes away.

That “Journalism” today. It’s all Politics. All agenda all the time. 🙂

Washington Post:

While few U.S. politicians bother to question whether humans are changing the world’s climate — nearly three years ago the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded the evidence was unequivocal — public debate persists. And the newly disclosed private exchanges among climate scientists at Britain’s Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies.

In one e-mail, the center’s director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University’s Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” Mann writes.

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,” Jones replies.

Your typical liberal response to any disagreeing with them, intimidate them, then if that doesn’t work, censor them.


This is downright Orwellian. 🙂 What the Post describes is not a vigorous debate but an attempt to suppress debate–to politicize the process of scientific inquiry so that it yields a predetermined result. This does not, in itself, prove the global warmists wrong. But it raises a glaring question: If they have the facts on their side, why do they need to resort to tactics of suppression and intimidation?

It is hard to see how this is anything less than a definitive refutation of the popular press’s contention that global warmism is settled science–a contention that both the <LONDON>Times and the Post repeat in their articles on the revelations: “The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument,” the Times claims. The Post leads its story by observing that “few U.S. politicians bother to question whether humans are changing the world’s climate,” and that “nearly three years ago the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded the evidence was unequivocal.”

But don’t expect much more from the faithful than there usual scorn, contempt and disrespect.

This should be considered not merely a scientific scandal but an enormous journalistic scandal. The elite press treats skepticism about global warming as a mental defect. It uses a form of the No True Scotsman fallacy to delegitimize people who dissent from the (manufactured) “consensus.” Dissent is scientifically unserious, therefore dissenting scientist A is unserious. There’s no way to break in. The moment someone disagrees with the “consensus” they disqualify themselves from criticizing the consensus. That’s not how science is supposed to work. Skeptics who’ve received a tote bag from some oil company (me: or insurance company in the Health Care debate) are branded as shills, but scientists who live off of climate-change-obsessed foundations or congressional fiefdoms are objective, call-it-like-they-see-it truth seekers. Question these folks and you get a Bill Murrayesque, “Back off, man. We’re scientists.” (NRO)

Well said.

An even larger reason this is a journalistic scandal is that governments want to spend — literally — trillions of dollars on climate change.

Cap & Trade anyone? anyone? 🙂

Industries want to make billions off it.

And so will some of it’s biggest Prophets (Profits, that’s a funny 🙂 ) , Like Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi.

James Taranto of Best of the Web Today reminds us of Al Gore’s statement in an interview with Grist, “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” In plain English, the former Vice President and Presidential candidate supports lying in favor of the causes he believes in and supports.

Taranto even manages to turn up a Stanford University professor, Stephen H. Schneider, who explained to Discover that in order to make the world a better place scientists sometimes have to “offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”

Interject FOXNews: Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and Professor Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Professor Jones talks to Professor Mann about the “trick of adding in the real temps to each series…to hide the decline [in temperature].”


The poor will be hurt. Economies wrenched apart. And journalistic skepticism is almost nowhere to be found. If you know people in the “skeptic community” (for want of a better term) or even just normal, honest scientists, the observation that federal and foundation funding and groupthink is driving, or at least distorting, the climate debate is commonplace. But it’s given almost no oxygen in the elite press, because they are in on it. (NRO)

So, yeah,  ABC,NBC,CBS, etc are really going to cover this story in detail and depth. 🙂

Hey, is that pig Flying!!!!

A few More nuggets:

And there is a lot more. In another exchange, Professor Jones tells Professor Mann: “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone” and “We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.” Professor Jones further urges Professor Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s controversial assessment report: “Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re: [the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report]?” In another e-mail, Professor Jones told Professor Mann and Professor Malcolm Hughes at the University of Arizona and Raymond S. “Ray” Bradley at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: “I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!”

Professor Jones complains to another academic: “I did get an e-mail from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting e-mails” and “IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on.” We only have e-mails from Professor Jones’ institution, and, with his obvious approach to delete files; we have no idea what damaging information has been lost.

London Telegraph:

But perhaps the most damaging revelations  – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters.

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

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. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute, told The Wall Street Journal: “This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn’t questionable practice, this is unethical.”

Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming myth), with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

The New York Times argues: “The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.” — This from the same news organization that regularly publishes classified government documents!

As long as they were related to George W. Bush, Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld that is. I used to call the New York Times, Al-Jazerra East because they were so gung-ho for the propaganda victories and damn the consequences.

US President Barack Obama said Tuesday the world has moved “one step closer” to a “strong operational agreement” on climate change at next month’s Copenhagen summit after his talks with Indian and Chinese leaders.

And the Mainstream Media is going to do everything Orwellianly possible to not talk about it. EVER.

You, the public, just can’t handle the Truth. 🙂


Feel Good Assumptions

This made me chuckle.


No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems — of which getting elected and re-elected are No. 1 and No. 2. Whatever is No. 3 is far behind.

Many of the things the government does that may seem stupid are not stupid at all, from the standpoint of the elected officials or bureaucrats who do these things.

The current economic downturn that has cost millions of people their jobs began with successive administrations of both parties pushing banks and other lenders to make mortgage loans to people whose incomes, credit history and inability or unwillingness to make a substantial down payment on a house made them bad risks.

Was that stupid? Not at all. The money that was being put at risk was not the politicians’ money, and in most cases was not even the government’s money.

And it made the liberal, especially, “feel good” that all these people who couldn’t afford it were given houses they couldn’t afford so that when the whole scheme collapsed it was the evil capitalists fault. The same capitalists they used and lauded over to create the mess in the first place.

And these people would vote for them.

They could use that. And they can use the “crisis” also.

Then they got their power dream. Control of the US Government.

So what if they cause the worst crash in generations, they got the power and there main goal now is to hold on to it. Everything else doesn’t really matter.

So how do they fix the problem of Bush running up the deficit?

Why, they SPEND EVEN MORE, but they do it “compassionately” 🙂

Moreover, the jobs that are being lost by the millions are not the politicians’ jobs — and jobs in the government’s bureaucracies are increasing.

And there are 111 new bureaucracies and counting in the Health Care bill. That’s a lot of bureaucrats.

And when the government has control of 1/6 of our entire economy and you and the decision of whether you live or die. It will be a bonanza for them.

Vote for me or die. 🙂

But first you have to pay massive tax increases for 4 years so that we can cook the books to make it look like we’re fiscally responsible when we’re just trying to get more money for re-election by funneling money to phony congressional districts.

But it looks good.

So what if we only have 38% support. We’re going to do it anyways.

It’s all about THEM, not US. You silly little taxpayer.

What every politicians wants, a pliable electorate to abuse. 🙂

So who really cares about jobs. Sure, Obama and Co. are going to be “job focused” as one Democratic strategist said once they cram Socialized Medicine down your our throats. But that’s because 2010 is a Congressional Re-election year.

Nothing more.

And I have maintained that if you thought 2007-2008 was the nastiest, most partisan fight ever. Just wait until 2010 and 2012.

Unholy, unethical, total annihilation partisanship is coming to a TV and Newspaper near you in 2010.

And Obama and The Democrats will have their “journalist” in the Mainstream “Ministry of Truth” Media to back them up and lie like Pinocchio never conceived of.

Just like the Housing Crisis, even today.

After the cascade of economic disasters that began in the housing markets in 2006 and spread into the financial markets in Wall Street and even overseas, people in the private sector pulled back. Banks stopped making so many risky loans. Home buyers began buying homes they could afford, instead of going out on a limb with “creative” — and risky — financing schemes to buy homes that were beyond their means.

But politicians went directly in the opposite direction. In the name of “rescuing” the housing market, Congress passed laws enabling the Federal Housing Administration to insure more and bigger risky loans — loans where there is less than a 4% down payment.

A recent news story told of three young men who chipped in a total of $33,000 to buy a home in San Francisco that cost nearly a million dollars. Why would a bank lend that kind of money to them on such a small down payment? Because the loan was insured by the Federal Housing Administration.

The bank wasn’t taking any risk. If the three guys defaulted, the bank could always collect the money from the Federal Housing Administration. The only risk was to the taxpayers.

And they’re suckers.

Just look at the Great Political Prostitute of 2009, Sen. Mary Landreiu. She says she against the Health Care bill. Obama and Reid roll up to her and ask her what it will cost to get her vote. They put down 100 Million. She says $300 Million.


It’s not their money. They don’t need to care. Because it gets them what they want.

And now she and probably many other Prostitutes are going to pork the Health Care Bill to unimaginable heights.

But don’t worry, it’s all for a good cause in the end.

Health Care for the Uninsured and the Poor?

Hell no, the Government, specifically, the Democrats, win. They get the ultimate Gravy Train of Money.

Money to use to get Re-Elected.

And that’s far more important than silly little ole’ Health Care. Or Global Warming. Or Amnesty.

Anything they do, we pay for it.

But it’s for our own good. Don’t you know. 🙂

But not to worry. There will always be taxpayers, not to mention future generations, to pay off the national debt.

And those future taxpayers, your kids and their kids, can’t vote against THEM and and the future is someone else’s electoral nightmare. That is after they spend 60 years in office raking in the millions and the power, that is.

Very few people are likely to connect the dots back to those members of Congress who voted for bigger mortgage guarantees and bailouts by the FHA. So the lawmakers’ and the bureaucrats’ jobs are safe, even if millions of other people’s jobs are not.

Rep. Barney Frank is not about to cut back on risky mortgage loan guarantees by the FHA. He recently announced that he plans to introduce legislation to raise the limit on FHA loan guarantees even more.

Rep. Frank will make himself popular with people who get those loans and with banks that make these high-risk loans where they can pocket the profits and pass the risk on to the FHA.

So long as the taxpayers don’t understand that all this political generosity and compassion are at their expense, Barney Frank is an odds-on favorite to get re-elected. The man is not stupid. What is stupid is believing that politicians are trying to solve our problems, instead of theirs.

As for the FHA running low on money, that is not about to stop the gravy train, certainly not with an election coming up in 2010.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. is also running low on money. But that is not going to stop it from insuring bank accounts up to a quarter of a million dollars. It would be stupid for them to stop with an election coming up in 2010.

A person with narcissistic personality disorder:

Narcissistic personality disorder is a condition in which there is an inflated sense of self-importance and an extreme preoccupation with one’s self.

  • Reacts to criticism with rage, shame, or humiliation
  • Takes advantage of other people to achieve his or her own goals
  • Has feelings of self-importance
  • Exaggerates achievements and talents
  • Is preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love
  • Has unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment (esp. with the Ministry of  Truth, hence why they hate FOX so much)
  • Requires constant attention and admiration
  • Disregards the feelings of others, lacks empathy (but can fake it)
  • Has obsessive self-interest
  • Pursues mainly selfish goals

Sound Familiar?? 🙂

The comedian Gallagher was right when he said :

There’s a reason “Congress” begins with the word “con”. Because “con” is the opposite of “pro”, so “Congress” must be the opposite of “progress”.  🙂