Author: admin
Climategate Round-Up #6
A lot of stuff was written about climategate over the last few days, here is a selection of some of the more interesting or salacious stuff. Of note is that this morning, CNN reported extensively on climategate, even sending John Roberts to the UK to report from the University of East Anglia campus. Tonight (Monday 7th) Campbell Brown’s show is on the topic “Global Warming: Truth or Trick.” For alarmists, the dam has burst on their hoax. On the opening day of the climate-a-palooza in Copenhagen, CNN has dedicated coverage to climategate, and that is just one more inconvenient truth. UPDATE: CNN video: ..
Climategate Inconvenient Emails/Data
Prof. Jones, the deleter in chief of the CRU, is helping police with their enquiries. But it’s not what you think, yet. Follow the money, the research money, to see how filthy lucre results in dirty science. The reckless ideology that drove the climategate scientists to hide declines, manipulate data, bully colleagues and ignore FOIA demands may have far reaching consequences for science and the credibility of scientists in every field of academic endeavor. Which is why the guilty must be identified, isolated, investigated and, where appropriate, prosecuted. The motley CRU have people everywhere, as this discovery in California shows. As the University of East Anglia conducts an investigation into the CRU emails and the Met. Office prepares to revisit 160 years of data, the UK government tries to shut the investigations down because it will give ammunition to skeptics. So much for the scientific method then. Is an important email missing from the leak, or was the deletion of data not accidental? The CRU hack or leak might have been one successful attempt of many to uncover the scandalous behaviour of the global warming alarmists. The smoking code. Revenge of the climate modellers, part deux.
Climategate in the Media
The New York Times, stung by criticism over their tardy response to climategate, finally has something to say on the matter. The only honest man at the CBC, Rex Murphy, wades in on the scandal: .. Forbes asks why Obama’s administration won’t acknowledge climategate. Note to Forbes, see also, Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, ACORN and crasher-gate. The Washington Post on the pseudo-science cesspool. Ouch. The Globe and Mail finally notices climategate, and focuses on the timing of the scandal. The BBC notices the CRU leak, and the fact that the CRU code is junk. Video at the link.
Exploding Hippie Heads
A selection of scary quotes, in handy video format. The believers are now deniers, as their neo-religion collapses, all they have left is dogma. Despite the hippies best efforts to pretend that their global warming hoax is not fatally wounded, climategate matters. Britain’s Prime Minister, a man desperate to pass global warming legislation to raise taxes that will bail him out from a decade of disastrous Labour government, calls skeptics ‘flat-earthers’. Will the curse of Jonah Brown strike now that he has defended climategate? Climategate gets more Dr. Strangelove by the day, now thee rumor is that the Russki’s hacked CRU. Climate scientists might be learned, but they don’t learn. The motley CRU were exposed as bunker-mentality bullies when it came to skeptical colleagues, behaviour for which they have been rightly vilified. But Michael Schlesinger still threatens a NYT journalist with ‘being cut-off’ from sources for his coverage of climategate:
Andy:
Copenhagen prostitutes?
Climate prostitutes?
Shame on you for this gutter reportage. [Emphasis added.]
This is the second time this week I have written you thereon, the first about giving space in your blog to the Pielkes.
The vibe that I am getting from here, there and everywhere is that your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists.
Of course, your blog is your blog.
But, I sense that you are about to experience the ‘Big Cutoff’ from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included.
Copenhagen prostitutes?
Unbelievable and unacceptable.
What are you doing and why?
Michael
The Telegraph’s religion correspondent, Will Heaven, still thinks the latest religion can survive climategate.
Climategate Hottie
The rumor is that Russians hacked the CRU, so let’s have a Russki hottie. That she was also a Bond girl is, of course, just icing on da cake, niet? (With apologies to Paua.) 
Thanks for reading.Source
Climategate Fallout Continues
National Post Full Comment Discussion of the hacked emails from East Anglia University reinforce one thing: The IPCC process needs to be fixed
Clive Crook, senior editor of The Atlantic Monthly and former deputy editor of The Economist:
In my previous post on Climategate I blithely said that nothing in the climate science email dump surprised me much. Having waded more deeply over the weekend I take that back.
The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering. And this scandal is not at the margins of the politicized Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change process. It goes to the core of that process.
One theme, in addition to those already mentioned about the suppression of dissent, the suppression of data and methods, and the suppression of the unvarnished truth, comes through especially strongly: plain statistical incompetence. Climate scientists lean very heavily on statistical methods, but they are not necessarily statisticians. Some of the correspondents in these emails appear to be out of their depth. This would explain their anxiety about having statisticians, rather than their climate-science buddies, crawl over their work.
I’m also surprised by the IPCC’s response. Amid the self-justification, I had hoped for a word of apology, or even of censure. The declaration from IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri that the emails confirm all is as it should be is stunning. Good lord. This is pure George Orwell.
The IPCC process needs to be fixed, as a matter of the greatest urgency. Judith Curry, Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology:
An open letter to graduate students and young scientists in fields related to climate research:
Based upon feedback that I’ve received from graduate students at Georgia Tech, I suspect that you are confused, troubled, or worried by what you have been reading about ClimateGate After spending considerable time reading the hacked emails and other posts in the blogosphere, I published an essay that calls for greater transparency in climate data and other methods used in climate research.
What has been noticeably absent so far in the ClimateGate discussion is a public reaffirmation by climate researchers of our basic research values: the rigours of the scientific method (including reproducibility), research integrity and ethics, open minds, and critical thinking. Under no circumstances should we ever sacrifice any of these values; the Climatic Research Unit emails, however, appear to violate them.
My motivation for communicating on this issue in the blogosphere comes from emails that I received from Georgia Tech graduate students and alums. I post the content of one of the emails here:
I am a young climate researcher and have been very troubled by the emails that were released from CRU. Your statement represents exactly how I have felt as I slowly enter this community. The content of some of the emails literally made me stop and wonder if I should continue with my PhD applications for fall 2010, in this science. I was so troubled by how our fellow scientists within the climate community have been dealing with opposing voices (on both sides). I hope we can all learn from this and truly feel that we are going to need voices like yours to fix these problems in the coming months and years.
If climate science is to uphold core research values and be credible to public, we need to respond to any critique of data or methodology that emerges from analysis by other scientists. Ignoring skeptics coming from outside the field is inappropriate; Einstein did not start his research career at Princeton, but rather at a post office. I’m not implying that climate researchers need to keep defending against the same arguments over and over again. Scientists claim that they would never get any research done if they had to continuously respond to skeptics. The counter to that argument is to make all of your data, metadata, and code openly available. Doing this will minimize the time spent responding to skeptics; try it! Mike Hulme, climate scientist, University of East Anglia:
The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science.
It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the IPCC has run its course. Yes, there will be another IPCC report but for what purpose? The IPCC itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production — just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive. Matthew Davidson in The Tech, MIT’s oldest and largest newspaper:
These communications reveal a trail of manipulation and concealment of data that would not support the theory of anthropogenic global warming. This is shameful and cannot be ignored by the scientific community. This corruption must be investigated and the individuals responsible must be tried for any illegal acts committed. Bob Ward, director of policy and communications at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics:
The only way of clearing the air now would be through a rigorous investigation. I have sympathy for the climate researchers at the University of East Anglia and other institutions who have been the target of an aggressive campaign by so-called ‘sceptics’ over a number of years. But I fear that only a thorough investigation could now clear their names. Stephen J. Dubner, co-author of Freakonomics:
If you are a fan of science, this is a pretty grim day. If you are a fierce partisan on either side of the global-warming issue, you are either gnashing your teeth or clicking your heels. If you are a government official heading to Copenhagen soon for the climate summit, you are probably wondering what the hell you’re supposed to think now.
Climategate: A Willful Ignorance
By Alan Caruba
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”
— MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, PhD, Atmospheric Science
“On such (climate) models we are supposed to wager trillions of dollars—and substantially diminished freedom.”–George F. Will, syndicated columnist, Washington Post
Long ago I took one science course in college because it was required, not because I had any great interest in science. The course was zoology and only my end of semester paper on raccoons, an assigned subject, avoided a failing grade. To this day, more than fifty years later, I still recall that its Latin name was Procyon lotar.
I cite this to indicate that anyone can learn science. It is neither mysterious, nor arcane. To some it is an intoxicating, powerful search for new understanding and new truth that becomes a lifelong pursuit, but even someone with no particular aptitude can grasp its fundamentals with a minimum of effort.
Why, then, do men entrusted with explaining the world to us, the reporters and editors of respected journals, resolutely refuse to embrace the truths that science offers in favor of the man-made myths intended to influence public opinion and policy?
Why do otherwise educated and apparently intelligent men publish a magazine like The Economist and put on its cover “Stopping Climate Change”, about a 14-page “special report”?
This is an astonishingly stupid headline. Even a child knows you cannot “stop” climate change. None of the more than six billion people on Earth can “stop” climate change because one of the definitions of change is “to become different” and a planet that has existed for 4.5 billion years has passed through many changes long before the first appearance of Homo sapiens.
Imagine a child saying, “Make it stop snowing” or “make the Sun come out.” But there are more than 16,500 men and women this very day who are gathered in Copenhagen, Denmark at a “Climate Change” conference based entirely on lies that defy simple truths about how the Earth functions.
Unless one was determined upon a willful ignorance of those truths, the vast body of lies that continue to be reported would and should sink beneath the weight of real science, legitimate science, not the computer model inventions that conveniently ignore the Medieval Warm period when temperatures were higher than they are now, a time when Chaucer (1342-1400) would write of vineyards in northern England, a time well before the Industrial Revolution and the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) that result from the use of coal, oil, and natural gas.
It is only willful ignorance that would keep a reporter or anyone else from knowing what has been known for years, that CO2 increases over the past 300,000 years have never caused temperature rise. Indeed, the rise of CO2 always follows in the wake of a temperature increase. What is so terribly wrong about the Copenhagen conference and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change sponsoring it is that its own member scientists know that too.
A week after the revelations of more than a thousand emails between the chief perpetrators of the science fraud that has since come to be called Climategate, an editor at The Economist could still write, “This newspaper believes that global warming is a serious threat, and that the world needs to take steps to try to avert it.”
Could The Economist be so uninformed, misinformed, or willfully ignorant of the commonly known fact that, despite a rise in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the Earth has been in a new, natural cooling cycle for a decade?
Can all the labors of the 16,000 scientists, diplomats, politicians, and other assorted conspirators manage to ignore that fact?
Not only can they, the newest form of the fraud has emerged already and was trumpeted in the pages of The Economist, claiming beyond all credulity that the Earth’s vast “carbon sinks”, its oceans, forests and all vegetation, are unlikely to be able to “absorb” all the CO2 being produced by that most horrid of all creatures, human beings.
The IPCC should be disbanded as a threat to mankind. The EPA should be required by Congress to produce scientific proof that CO2 is a “pollutant” to be regulated. It cannot!
The people attending the conference should be run out of Copenhagen as if peasants were once again pursuing the monster, Frankenstein.
And The Economist, along with all the so-called scientific magazines and news outlets that have prostituted themselves to the global warming fraud, should issue an apology to their readers.
Alan Caruba writes a daily post at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com. An author, business and science writer, he is the founder in 1990 of The National Anxiety Center, a clearinghouse for information about “scare campaigns” designed to influence public opinion and policy.
Nopenhagen: Laughingstock Gore Cancels UN Talk
By Doug Ross
The Associated Press reports that the Copenhagen Summit on global warming climate change is crumbling as we speak.
Laughingstock Al Gore canceled his planned speech, citing inherent stupidity. Or perhaps I heard that part wrong.
Climate campaigner Al Gore has canceled a lecture he was supposed to deliver in Copenhagen.
The former vice president and Nobel Peace Prize winner had been scheduled to speak to more than 3,000 people at a Dec. 16 event hosted by the Berlingske Tidende newspaper group.
The group says Gore canceled the lecture Thursday, citing unforeseen changes in his schedule.
That’s right. Schedule. Like, ‘I couldn’t schedule a lecture when the entire IPCC global warming bunko scam just freaking imploded.’
Over at Penn State University, laughingstock Michael Mann threw his long-time pal, co-conspirator and fellow laughingstock Phil Jones under the bus.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s The World Tonight, Prof Mann said: “I can’t put myself in the mind of the person who wrote that email and sent it. I in no way endorse what was in that email.”
Prof Mann also said he could not “justify” a request from Prof Jones that he should delete some of his own emails to prevent them from being seen by outsiders.
Yes, I’m sure Mann is as pure as the driven snow. After the snow’s been painted yellow by a cow that’s freezing to death because of global warming.
Update: Gore is willing to forfeit plenty of dough to avoid the real scientists. Hat tip: Climate Depot.
CBC video: Rex Murphy reports on Climategate
Thank you CBC, for once in a blue moon allowing some balance in your journalism. Too bad it took a huge scandal like Climategate for you to take notice. But oh wait…I suppose that’s because it’s only newsworthy if it’s either a scandal or the world is ending next week, right? Okay okay, we salute you today, and hopefully much more in the future.
– Justin
Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, Dec. 3rd 2009
Where is Al Gore’s secret climategate-proof bunker? Has Heinz saved the planet? Does Hopenchangen have a chance of achieving anything? Dive and discover the answers to these questions, and more. Plus, of course a hottie. Because you’re worth it. For Climategate news see the special edition round-ups parts One, Two, Three, Four and Five. For an announcement about a forthcoming poll and your chance to participate, lookee here.
Part One: Al Gore & Friends
The Goreacle has been largely absent from the climategate fallout, largely because he’s been, well, hiding. Not only has his precious hockey stick been debunked, but now the whole mess of science behind Al’s personal enrichment save-the-planet hoax has been called into question. What else is the face of global warming going to do when the peasants get uppity? Al blogged from his secret bunker that he was super happy that his BFF Barack Obama would be joining him for Hopenchangen in Copenhagen next week. He also blogged that the time is up for short-term capitalism, but fortunately there is still enough time for you to pay Al $1200 for a book and a handshake, of course. That’s for the cause, not capitalism. God forbid that an ex-Vice-President of the United States of America be pro-capitalism or anything. 
In the absence of real news about the great propheteer, let’s giggle at some spoof news instead. Canada’s little alarmist totalitarian, David Suzuki, came out in the press to face the climategate fallout, using all the lefty talking points to pretend that the event that has blown their cozy little hoax into a billion pieces is no biggie, really. Then, Eco-Dave makes a mistake, quite a big one:
Sadly for the deniers and for all of us, the emails don’t show that global warming is a grand hoax or conspiracy. They do nothing to diminish the decades of overwhelming scientific evidence that the Earth is not only warming largely because of emissions from burning fossil fuels but that it’s worse than we thought. Recently, 26 scientists from Germany, France, Switzerland, Austria, Canada, the U.S., and Australia released a report showing that the impacts of global warming are occurring faster and are more widespread than other reports from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had projected.
Unfortunately for David Suzuuki, one of the the lead authors of that report is none other than Michael Mann, one of climategate’s central figures, which sort of undermines its credibility. Oops.
Part Two: AGW Scaremongers
The sea is an unpredictable mistress, in fact she’s a downright conundrum. How else to explain that global warming will cause the sea to rise 1 metre by 2100. No wait, that’s 2 metres, stupid. No wait, my bad, it’s 4½ feet. But the science is settled, see? However high the waters rise, they’ll be warmer, which is bad news for coral and fish ‘n’ stuff. Too bad, if they’d gotten on with it and evolved legs, we wouldn’t have to wreck the economy for an anemone.
anemone of my enemy is my friend?Prince Chuckles Mum, the Queen, decides that a life of privilege and undereducation is an excellent platform from which to warn the great unwashed about global warming. Isn’t there an island with natives that want to meet her or something? Moonbats were sighted over Toronto. Nothing unusual about that, except that this was Moonbat Prime. If you’re interested in what he had to say, it’s here in all its Canada-bashing glory. An eco-terrorist is brought to justice. In China. That made my day, honestly.Read the rest over at The Daily Bayonet!
The Global Warming Bulldozer
By Alan Caruba
To those who think that the revelations about the massive international fraud called “global warming”, now called “climate change”, will deter the efforts of those who have devoted years and millions to convince the public that drastic measures must be taken to “save the Earth”, let me put you straight on that topic.
A vast Green bulldozer of propaganda will be let loose upon everyone watching television, reading newspapers and magazines, or visiting websites in order to smear those standing up against this juggernaut of foundations, environmental organizations, government agencies, and the central organizer of the fraud, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
A legion of “science” and other reporters will do everything in their power to “explain” the many emails between the perpetrators of the “global warming” fraud and to repeat the lies that underwrite the passage of laws such as “cap-and-trade” and the Obamacare legislation, both of which are a dagger aimed at the heart of the American economy.
The good news is that it will not work.
The day before Thanksgiving, the Global Warming Campaign Director for Greenpeace USA, Damon Moglen, issued a statement:
“In a statement today, the Obama administration announced that the President will attend the international climate talks in Copenhagen on December 9th…more than a week before international leaders will arrive to show their commitment to shaping an ambitious and comprehensive climate deal,” said Moglen.
“The administration’s announcement proposed the same inadequate emissions targets that were included in the House-passed climate legislation. By taking his cues from a Congress heavily influenced by the fossil fuel industry, Obama continues to shirk domestic and international leadership on climate policy.”
Lies! The Greenpeace “attack” on President Obama is a subterfuge to distract everyone from the FACT that so-called greenhouse gas emissions, primarily carbon dioxide, have nothing to do with the equally bogus “global warming.” More to the point, the Earth has been cooling for the past decade!
“Science calls for the United States and the developed world to cut pollution by at least 26 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 to 95 percent by 2050,” said Moglen.
Carbon dioxide is not “pollution.” It is the one gas vital to the growth of every kind of vegetation on Earth. It is to plants and trees what oxygen is to human beings and other creatures.
The “science”, however, has been revealed to have been deliberately rigged by a cabal of previously “respected scientists” who fed their false data to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change over the years to support the hoax. That, in turn, was used to justify the UN Kyoto Protocols and the treaty being put forth at the upcoming climate conference, beginning December 7 in Copenhagen.
Greenpeace is just one of many Green organizations that have devoted themselves to the hoax. On November 23, Keya Chatterjee, Acting Director of the World Wildlife Fund’s Climate Program, released a statement commending President Obama for supporting “an emissions reduction target” in Copenhagen, adding that there was a need to provide financial support for “poor and vulnerable countries that are suffering the impacts of climate change and those that aspire to contribute more to the clean energy economy.”
At the heart of the global warming hoax has always been the intention to force a reduction in the use of coal, natural gas and oil by industrialized nations and to secure the transfer of funds to underdeveloped nations that were exempted from the original Kyoto Protocols. Also exempt, China and India!
One must wonder what the World Wildlife Fund has to do with climate science. However, the same day, the WWF released another statement predicting that “sea level rise could dramatically increase risks to buildings, transportation, infrastructure and other assets exposed to severe storm surges in the coastal areas of the U.S. A WWF “study” had been underwritten by Allianz SE, an insurance company. But the seas are not rising beyond an inch or so every century.
“With each new study, the alarm bells become deafeningly clear that climate change will have devastating consequences for our economy and way of life,” said David Reed, Senior Vice President of Policy at the WWF.
These “studies” and the rigged climate data of the IPCC have nothing to do with science, nor will they cease any time soon.
Indeed, as the world draws nearer to the Copenhagen climate conference, they will increase in intensity because this is possibly the last change the Green juggernaut has to strip America and other nations of access to and the use of the energy sources they need to continue providing a modern and improved standard of life to the people the world.
The global warming fraud is an attack on humanity.
Caruba blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com.
'Climategate' now surpasses 'Barack Obama' in Google search results!
First, Watts Up With That reported that the popular Google search term “global warming” had been passed by “Climategate” in the total number of search results. Next, GORE LIED reported that as the number of search results had continued to climb, “Climategate” had even passed former Vice President and man-made global warming huckster Al Gore in search results. Today, as the “Climategate” tsunami grows ever larger on the blogosphere, and the Internet in general, the Google search term “Climategate” has even left “Barack Obama” in its dust: 
Is there anything search term even larger than “Barack Obama” that “Climategate” has to conquer? Yes, but I wouldn’t bet any money on it: 
Meantime, Watts Up With That has found something fishy about a related matter with Climategate search.
Source
DO SMOKING GUNS CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING, TOO?
By Ann Coulter
As we now know (and by “we” I mean “everyone with access to the Internet”), the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has just been caught ferociously manipulating the data about the Earth’s temperature.
Recently leaked e-mails from the “scientists” at CRU show that, when talking among themselves, they forthrightly admit to using a “trick” to “hide the decline” in the Earth’s temperature since 1960 — as one e-mail says. Still another describes their manipulation of the data thus: “[W]e can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!”
Am I just crazy from the heat or were they trying to deceive us?
Global warming cheerleaders in the media were quick to defend the scandalous e-mails, explaining that, among scientists, the words “trick,” “hide the decline” and “garbage” do not mean “trick,” “hide the decline” and “garbage.” These words actually mean “onion soup,” “sexual submissive” and “Gary, Ind.”
(Boy, it must be great to be able to redefine words right in the middle of a debate.)
Also, of course, the defenders said that the words needed to be placed “in context” — the words’ check was in the mail, and they’d like to spend more time with their families.
I have placed the words in context and it turns out what they mean is: gigantic academic fraud.
The leaked e-mail exchanges also show the vaunted “scientists” engaging in a possibly criminal effort to delete their own smoking-gun e-mails in response to a Freedom of Information request. Next, the fanatics will be telling us that “among scientists,” this behavior does not indicate knowledge of guilt.
If I recall correctly, their next move should be to fire the special prosecutor late Saturday night.
These e-mails aren’t a tempest in a teapot. They are evidence of pervasive fraud by a massively influential institution that has dominated news coverage of global warming.
CRU was regularly cited as the leading authority on “global climate analysis” — including by the very news outlets that are burying the current scandal, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post. The CRU alone received more than $23 million in taxpayer funds for its work on global warming.
Having claimed to have collected the most complete data on the Earth’s temperature for the last half century, the CRU’s summary of that data was used by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for its 2007 report demanding that we adopt a few modest lifestyle changes, such as abolishing modern technology, reverting to hunter/gatherer status and taxing ourselves into servitude.
But then last weekend — in the middle of the “Let’s Cook the Books!” e-mail scandal — the CRU said that all its data on the Earth’s temperature since 1960 had been irretrievably “lost.” (Although I suspect “overcooked” might be a more apt term.)
The way this episode is unfolding, the environmentalists may be forced to drop their phantom threat of global warming and go back to the phantom threat of global cooling.
Most disturbingly, the CRU-affiliated “scientists” were caught red-handed conspiring to kill the careers and reputations of scientists who dissented from the religion of global warming. Indignant that scientific journals were publishing papers skeptical of global warming, the cult members plotted to get editors ousted and the publications discredited.
This sabotage of global warming dissenters may be more galling than their manipulation of the data. Until now, the global warming cult’s sole argument has been to demand that everyone shut up in response to the “scientific consensus” that human activity was causing global warming.
That’s their idea of a free and open debate.
It’s always the same thing with primitive people — voodoo practitioners, rain dancers and liberals. In lieu of facts, debate and a weighing of the evidence, religious fanatics respond to all counterarguments by invoking a higher authority: the witch doctor, a “scientific consensus,” “the Constitution” or “historians are agreed.”
Liberals won’t tell us why Congress passed a law outlawing incandescent lightbulbs by 2014 — a bill solemnly delivered to the president in a Prius hybrid (making it the slowest-moving bill in U.S. history). Instead, they tell us there’s a “scientific consensus” that we have to use fluorescent lightbulbs or we’ll all die.
They won’t tell us why Ten Commandments monuments must be stripped from every public space in America. Instead, they tell us “the Constitution” says so (according to the high priests who interpret it to mean things the document doesn’t remotely say).
They won’t tell us what Sen. Joe McCarthy lied about. They say: Historians are agreed that McCarthy was a liar. (These are the same historians who also stated as fact that “few American Communists were spies” — until decrypted Soviet cables proved that the Communist Party was awash with Soviet spies.)
This is precisely what liberals accuse Christians of doing, but which Christians never do. We don’t cite the Bible as authority — and then refuse to let anyone read it. We certainly don’t claim to have “lost” it, so you can’t check for yourself. But that’s exactly what the CRU has done with its secret data allegedly showing a warming Earth.
Also, biblical data on the great flood and Noah’s ark have held up remarkably well.
Even if the Earth were warming — which apparently it is not — the idea that humans using energy-efficient lightbulbs would alter the temperature of the globe is approximately as plausible as the Aztecs’ belief that they were required to wrench the beating heart out of living, breathing humans in order to keep the sun on its path.
Sadly, the “human sacrifice deniers” lost the argument to Aztec CRU scientists, who explained that there was a “scientific consensus” on the benefits of ritual murder.
But at least the Aztecs only slaughtered tens of thousands of humans in the name of “climate change.” The global warming cultists want us all dead.