The Author
You couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried.
You should be familiar with the long suffering debate over global warming. Or global cooling. Or climate change. Or whatever they’re calling it these days. If you’re not, a very quick primer is in order.
The folks on the forefront of the insistence that “man” is causing the climate to change and that will cause natural disasters that will herald the end of the world are famous for a number of things, some of the most stark being:
- Insisting that “climate science” is “settled science” and refusing to address whether their conclusions are “fact” or “theory”. (Note: as a guy with an earned degree in engineering from one of the top schools in the country, run like hell when you hear a “scientist” making proclamations like this.)
- Turning “science” into “politics” and sucking billions of dollars for “research”.
- Refusing to release the raw data upon which their conclusions are based, even though it was paid for with public funds.
- Throwing an absolute blackout curtain over the entire process by which they insist that most of the world’s economies need to come to a screeching halt in order to stop a “climate Armageddon”.
So this week we discover that a guy named Peter Gleick, a climate change fanatic who runs the Pacific Institute in California (where else) “…fraudulently obtained document from global warming skeptics challenging his work…”. You can read the whole Reuters article if you’ve got a strong stomach. Anyway, here’s Gleick’s “reasoning” for committing fraud:
“My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts – often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated – to attack climate science and scientists … and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved,…
And then, compounding Gleick’s hypocrisy, we get this:
The incident has raised concern among climatologists that scientific credibility might be tarnished.
“We think it unfortunate that this has the potential to deflect the conversation away from the scientific consensus that the climate change is taking place,” said Christine McEntee, executive director of the American Geophysical Union.
Let me not mince words. “Climatologists” have NO scientific credibility. None. Zero. Zilch. Bupkis. Scientists are people who pursue truth and they welcome review and debate of their theories. They make their data available to other scientists, their process is transparent, they clearly state what they believe to be facts and why and they label their assumptions as such. The people who promote the idea of man-made climate change do none of these because they are political charlatans. One day I expect to see a new hit musical on Broadway featuring the son of Professor Harold Hill climate as a scientist the global warming version of the following classic…
Related posts:
RE-STICKERS ARE HERE!
@FACEBOOK & TWITTER
in 70s they said we were going to have global cooling, then in 90s global warming ….now we find out climate temperature has remained fairly stable for last 15 years…. it is all about the money these crooks are making off it all….
Global warming, climate change or what ever is nothing but a great big steaming pile of bull shit!
sounds about right—typical for dems and their cronies. Sheesh.
When you have to cheat…..
libtards.
The science is solid and the vast majority of scientists on the planet agree that climate change caused by industrial, aeronautical, and automotive hydrocarbon emissions is a fact. Grasping onto one idiot’s attempt to manipulate the data and declaring the fundamental science fraudulent is simplistic and serves to rob your opinions of substance.
Well Mark, if the fundamental science is NOT fraudulent, why do it’s proponents work so hard to keep the raw data hidden? Why do they refuse to produce the actual algorithms they use for their formulas that purport to “prove” AGW? Why does their story change every time one of their “forecasts” turns out to be not just wrong, but 180 degrees wrong?
I’m willing to entertain the idea that the earth might – note: “might” – be getting warmer, or cooler, but I absolutely reject that anything man is doing is the causal factor and there is absolutely no scientific proof that would lead to a conclusion that the US – or any other country – should basically shut down their economy in order to stop it.
Let me ask you a question Mark. Let’s say this is all true. Let’s say there really is global warming. I don’t agree with it, but let’s just say it really was true. :::shrugs::: Ok. So it’s true. Let’s say we all acknowledge it. Now what. See, therein lies the rub. What exactly do you want. I’ll give you a hint. It’s rectangular, green, and has pictures of famous people on it. Money is driving this. Hey, if global warming backers want to put on tin foil hats and play global warming games, have fun. But that’s not what they want. The U.N, the people that brought you the oil for food scandal, want BILLIONS of U.S dollars to fight this supposed menace. There is no way I’d hand over one U.S taxpayer dollar to those crooks. Hey, you know what’s funny by the way? I’ve argued with oh so many “intellectuals” like you the past few years and one thing I keep noticing is everytime you disagree with someones views you call their arguments “simplistic.” “Well, that’s a very simplistic view of the innate and complex problems (see, I can use big words too) facing us today.” When you argue a point, try to treat the person your arguing with as someone you respect, but just disagree with. Calling someone basically, a simpleton, won’t endear you to them or make them want to possibly see your side of an argument. Your elitist attitude comes out as if anyone who doesn’t take your side in a debate over an issue is somehow inferior to you. A good example of a respectful debate would be something along the lines of….”You make some valid points, but here’s where I have to take issue and disagree…” Or, “Yes, I see your point but I feel differently because…” This way your opponent doesn’t see you as an elitist jackass.
Oh, by the way, quite a few “scientists” have been caught dummying up the numbers on this issue. Why? If the science stands on its own and the claims of global warming are easy to prove…..why the phonying up of the data? It’s more than one instance too. And for all the scientists saying it is true, there are several noted respected scientists saying it isn’t true.
global warmin is no real bewcoas in the bible this shit NEVER HAPPIND@! is juast a shit lie from librals!
These people don’t think that laws apply to them.