The soap opera with the global warming hoax continues
December 16, 8:01 AMOakland County Republican ExaminerGary Devine
The soap opera with the global warming hoax continues. A few weeks ago, stories circulated that e-mails between scientists at major universities had been uncovered. These e-mails were exchanged between staunch global warming proponents. The crux of the e-mails was to cover up any incriminating data, which could refute the global warming argument.
This is not science. This is fraud. The earth’s temperature may be rising or lowering. That determination should be made by honest climatologists not by Michael Mann of Penn State University and Phil Jones of the Climate Research Union in England. These two hucksters are ivory tower crooks. They schemed to tell the world that climate change is real and imminent. Jones stepped down from his position at the CRU. If he were worth his scientific salt, he would’ve come clean with his data and refuted the e-mails. Instead he was a coward who ran and hid. Mann should be run out of academe. We could get Joe-Pa, Penn State’s head football coach, to kick Mann out of Happy Valley.
Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdren is as guilty as Mann and Jones in this whole global warming hoax. To make the issue more comical, these so-called experts or liars along with leaders around the world are convening at a climate change summit in Copenhagen even after this fraudulent con game has been exposed. The only reason to conduct the convention was not to change the earth’s climate but the call girls of Copenhagen offered to provide their services to the attendees for free. So these mousy ‘nit-nerds’ like Holdren who couldn’t pick up a female if she jumped on his lap weren’t going to pass on that opportunity, carbon footprint or not.
The Copenhagen conference will pressure the United States to pay billions and compromise our industry to placate these liars. Meanwhile China and India, the biggest polluters on this planet, will sacrifice nothing. Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil producer, will laugh at these people or shut off oil production if they’re threatened with any sanctions.
The intention of these frauds is to cash in on the global warming scare mongering. Al Gore has done it and he’s reaped millions. The fact that Al Gore was front and center of the global warming crusade should be the first indication that the global warming was a hoax. Gore is the consummate hypocrite and fraud himself. We know his carbon footprint is the size of Pluto. He travels in luxury in a Gulfstream Jet. His own residence uses 12 times more energy than the average American homeowner. Some concern for the environment Gore has. Though Gore never had a concern for anyone but himself. He stands to make millions on the cap and trade offsets. He would never publicly admit that.
Gore and the liberals are coming to the professors’ defense citing the e-mails were illegally obtained. When did a liberal ever criticize a whistle blower? When did the New York Times or the major networks ever turn down a good scoop? The Washington Post canonized Deep Throat. He was primary source for reporter Bob Woodward during the Nixon Watergate scandal.
Jones and Mann had the same greedy intentions of reaping from the cap and trade revenue stream. If these two frauds want to really save the planet, they could put their so-called expertise to good use. They could develop methods to harness solar and wind power that they vehemently demand the rest of us utilize. Or find a way to make our cars run on salt water.
They’ll be wealthy beyond their wildest dreams without sharing a penny with Al Gore.
Climategate and the dangers of indifferent distraction
December 20, 11:09 AMPhiladelphia DNC ExaminerJoshua Reese
The notoriety surrounding the leaked emails of leading climatologists, rightfully termed “Climategate” by one British journalist, has been woeful for those in the trenches of a long, protracted war of technical deception. The apparent massaging of data pertaining to rising temperatures around the globe has led to a justifiable outcry of “foul play” throughout the scientific community. To conclude that climate change is merely a hoax, however, would be an insidious misinterpretation of these shameless acts of disinformation.
Evidently, “global warming” as it has been portrayed in graphs to explode upward in recent years may have been exaggerated, though not fabricated entirely. CO2 emissions are still climbing annually, perpetuating a further concentration of greenhouse gases which, in turn, warm the planet, as has been the case since the birth of industry. What can be put to rest are the infamous “hockey stick” graphs, and Al Gore’s elevator ride to the top of his Inconvenient Truth projector screen. My point is that Gore’s elevator is merely replaced by a tall ladder, and (Penn State’s own) Michael Mann’s hockey stick becomes a low-grade ramp. Climatologists still cling to a potential two-degree shift per century, caused in no small part by the rising tide of greenhouse gases and our planet’s inability to absorb them through oceanic or vegetative processes. Critics of climate change suggest this gradual upward trending in temperatures is merely part of a natural planetary warming cycle. They propose abandoning Kyoto, denying humanity’s inherent responsibility to immediately cease what can only be described as slow and deliberate self-induced genocidal mania.
In a nation whose elected leaders have yet to ratify the Kyoto protocol, the U.S. needs to embrace that which the rest of the world has already come around on. The scientific community has a unified, unshakeable comprehension of how differing gases affect our planet’s atmospheric stability. The debate resides only in the rate at which the addition of manmade carbon emissions will increase global temperatures. Those that will now use the aforementioned emails to altogether deny man-made warming are advancing a treasonous rhetoric that is unreasonable as it is reactionary, and potentially dangerous if left unchecked.
Increases in CO2 levels were first measured in the early 1960’s, after a century of theorized debate on the effects industrialization was having on the climatic status quo. The man-made GHG argument waged on for decades, gradually picking up momentum, as did concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. That is until Dr. Philip Jones began ramping up threat levels.
Director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, Jones now finds himself at the center of a firebrand controversy of statistical ruse. His recommendations to delete emails pertaining to the CRU’s annual report to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were indeed a criminal act, since requests to view them (along with his research) were made under the UK’s Freedom of Information Act.
Also complicit in the fiasco is American climatologist Michael Mann, and by extension his “hockey stick graph” repeatedly referenced by Jones in a series of “peer review” exchanges, notably closed off to opposing viewpoints. In confirming one another’s theories on advanced global warming models, this widely trusted mythology of revised, drastic warming patterns managed to infiltrate the policy agenda of the UNFCCC with what is now considered “tainted data”, including COP15 earlier this month in Copenhagen, Denmark.
This trans-Atlantic conspiracy to perpetuate fear-based embellishments at the expense of the entire green earth movement had been previously exposed as fraudulent by Stephen McIntyre on his Climate Audit blog. Again, the only thing new here is the damning evidence of professional misconduct by self-proclaimed “men of science”.
With President Obama having drafted a framework agreement with world leaders at COP15 for an impending replacement to the Kyoto Protocol, he was well aware of the waning support here at home. Had he signed away our commitment to an international carbon tax, the Senate would’ve rallied against it, blocked the funding, further eroding the already shaken credibility of Obama’s first-year administration.
Capitalism naturally yields an allergic reaction to cap-and-trade legislation in all its forms. To some, purchasing our right to pollute the atmosphere equates to big government infringement on an otherwise free market. Still, carbon limits have been widely successful in many of the 186 countries that did sign legally binding commitments to Kyoto, serving as the best viable option currently available to governments attempting to rein in gaseous industrial waste.
According to author and columnist Thomas Friedman, “there’s only one thing as big as Mother Nature, and that’s Father Greed.” He suggests “the way you get big change in the world is you get the big players to do the right things for the wrong reasons… incentivize companies to get rich doing the right things.”
Cap-and-trade does not solve man-made global warming, but could serve as a catalyst to the green energy industry our job-starved nation hopes to embrace. Taxing companies that “over-pollute” would generate funds for the research and development of cleaner energy solutions. More importantly, the U.S. could finally stop thumbing its nose at the UNFCCC, often bringing our distinctly American brand of obstructionist politics to the floor of a world government body. Our insistence on constant inaction has led China to follow suit, making us the undisputed champs of global pollution, abjectly refusing to curb our national behavior in what amounts to nothing more than the immoral quest for profitability while unbalancing the ecosystem, however gradually.
Next year, Congress will consider an American initiative to obtain true data through an international body of respected scholars hand-picked by a bipartisan committee dedicated to saving our planet. The “revelations” brought to light last month mean we may have more time to face up to our own national culpability than the fear-mongers had previously frightened us into believing. Instead, the climate change debate continues headlong into the 21st century, but it must not be misappropriated as a “hoax”. Rather, as a one-degree-at-a-time program, worthy of cautious, accuracy-based legislative solutions.