Global Warming and the Tea Party Movement
76Recently I received a comment on another Hub I wrote about Al Gore and Global Warming. I also received similar comments on another article I wrote elsewhere. I was accused of being one of those mentally challenged tea partiers. I confess, I am, I do believe in the tea party movement and no matter how many people try to make me feel bad about it, I am proud of it.
The comment listed 23 items which tea partiers evidently believe in, the premise being if you believe at least four, you qualify for membership in the tea party movement, and ten or more means you should be checked into a mental hospital. I am happy they let me keep my laptop. Originally I was going to reply to each comment individually, but instead I think some Hubs will be more appropriate. Let’s see. 23 points, 23 Hubs, sure will take a lot of my time here in the loony bin.
Need Information From Amazon? Order Here:
 | Amazon Price: $15.95 List Price: $25.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $10.95 List Price: $25.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $3.61 List Price: $14.95 |
Point 1: Global Warming is a Hoax
.The first accusation made in the list is if you believe global warming is a hoax you must be a tea party member. According to Dictionary.com:
hoax [hohks] noun
1. something intended to deceive or defraud: The Piltdown man was a scientific hoax.
Using this definitions then I guess it comes down to what you believe about global warming and whether or not there is such a thing, and if you believe there is not, then do you believe someone is trying to deceive or defraud.
First , let me state that as with anything which is considered a hoax or conspiracy, there will always be two sides to each argument and of course the evidence to prove or disprove anything which is said. Those passionate about their side will of course say the other side is wrong and their facts are incorrect. Which of course brings up the question is there truly an independent authority on anything? Everyone has an agenda.
When you look at global warming, or really any issue, you must first look at who has the most to gain. Just like when a homicide detective looks at a murder, he looks for motive and who has something to gain from the crime, the same holds true for global warming. Is there anyone who could gain from the business of global warming? Is there anyone out there who would gain by a surge in development of “green technology”? maybe someone like Al Gore?
According to the New York Times, here is just one example which says he is:
The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts. Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr. Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years. - NY Times 11/2/2009
Do as I say not as i do
From the same article:
And few have put as much money behind their advocacy as Mr. Gore and are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes. - NY Times
Now I realize the New York Times is totally unbiased and we can believe everything they say, especially when it comes to the left, so if they say it, it must be so. So wouldn’t this show he has a vested interest in promoting his ideas?
The real problem I have with Al Gore and his “belief” in global warming is it is hard to listen to someone who wants the rest of us to go along with his ideas, drive electric cars, cut down on our electric bills, etc. etc., yet doesn’t practice what he preaches. Flying around in a private jet certainly isn’t living the green life, nor is using more electricity that everyone else in his home state. Yet , he wants us to believe he is on the forefront.
And then there is the whole scientific community thing. When one takes a look at where most of the funding used to study climate change comes from, the government, wouldn’t it make sense to come up with conclusions which coincide what the funding source believes? After all, if someone gave me a million dollars to tell them the world is flat, I would to my best to prove it, or at least come up with enough evidence to make people think it is flat which would lead to my asking for more money for more research.
Some more links:
- The Climate Crisis Hoax - Forbes.com
On this subject, there's very little to debate. - The Times | UK News, World News and Opinion
News and opinion from The Times, sign up now and get your first 30 days access for 1
Walking like a duck
Of course the left has used their age old tactic of changing the name of the problem to a term which is very hard to argue against, from global warming to climate change, but at least in this tea party members view from the little window in my cell, there is no evidence that any climate change which is occurring is manmade. After all if you look at the evidence from 1940 to 1980, when there was the biggest war in our history, nuclear war and nuclear testing as well as numerous missiles and rockets being fired all over the place and there was no change or a lowering of the mean temperature, depending on who you care to believe, I am not sure man has much affect on the whole thing.
So, concluding me rather lengthy discourse here from cell 226, while global warming may not be a hoax, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and acts like a duck, by golly It must be a duck.
CommentsLoading...
The so-called "civilized world sa far as we know has only been around for about 10,000 years.I'm sure there are scientists out there who could give us evidence either way. That global warming or global cooling exists and why in their view.
The history of the earth's climate shows both have existed somewhere,sometime,for some reason.
We,know vast amounts of dust in the atmosphere can cause global cooling because it blocks sunlight from reaching the earth's surface.The same dust would cause less sunlight from reaching all plant life.Which of course is said to be trhe reason the dinasaurs died off.Lack of food.
Carbon dioxide has been blamed as the main reason for global warming.However,other gases called flourocarbons and "H.A.A.R.P" the so-called weather machine the military is said to have are to blame for the vast hole in the upper stmosphere at the earths northpole which is allowing cosmic rays to enter the earths atmosphere at that point.Alaska is warming up at an alarming rate and the Icebergs are melting too.There are droughts as well as floods around the world as well as in North America.I think there are a combination of factors acting on the earths climate all at the same time.It,may well be too late to change it,but that's not going to stop the greedy from trying to make a buck off of it.Their motto is live for today for tommarow may never come.(for them anyway)
Any time I have had a discussion with someone on the left, it is always the same, they are right, you are wrong and it doesn't matter how many facts you have to prove your point, they don't want to listen.
There are not two sides to science; there is only a body of knowledge. Right or wrong it is the best explanation we have for a given observation. The Earth is warming and humans are causing it. Within the scientific community this theory is believed with a high level of certainty, and to support it, scientists could fill up a room with peer-reviewed scientific research. To refute man-made global warming or to offer an alternative theory to explain the observed energy change would require some other peer-reviewed scientific research - of which there is NONE.
Scientists commit a lifetime to becoming experts in their fields, not unlike the commitment and effort doctor's put into their careers and most will never be even slightly famous or wealthy. The body of evidence that supports man-made global warming has been generated by tens of thousand of scientists all over the world for decades. The idea that they are all a part of some grand conspiracy is wildly ridiculous.
Al Gore is NOT a scientist. He is a commentator. The particular political policies any one person proposes are separate from the objective information provided by scientists. Even if global warming is true, there are hundreds of different things we can do about it. Don't blame scientists for the misguided efforts of politicians.
Also, do you honestly believe there is only one side with something to gain or lose here? Do you have any idea how much time, effort, and money goes into spreading misinformation about global warming by those who have something to lose through carbon taxing (i.e. the largest and most powerful companies on the planet)? Consider, for instance, how often "Climategate" nonsense is mentioned online (like Writer David was alluding to, but obviously knows nothing about). The so-called controversy in question has been thoroughly reviewed and concluded to be irrelevant, and yet there is a significant effort to parrot it as a huge scam all over the place.
There is a reason that the term was changed from global warming to climate change. If you don't even know something that simple, I would imagine that you know very little about the actual science of climate change. If you really want to argue against climate change, you have to use scientific arguments, not complaints about Al Gore, or anecdotal observations such as, "see its snowing in May..."
I'm really not trying to argue right or wrong. I am simply pointing out the huge difference between a non-scientific theory (e.g. aliens are causing global warming) versus a scientific theory. maybe aliens ARE causing global warming, it isn't the theory which has any evidence to support it.
Junkseller, thanks for the comment.
What is the reason the term was changed from global warming, I would love to know.
I am guessing I have a few years on you, not saying that makes me any smarter, but I remember scientists telling us when I was a kid how we were due for another ice age very soon because the ice caps were growing at an alarming rate. Then they were shrinking, then they were growing again. Sure, you can say the science has advanced every year, and I agree, but just recently I have heard how the ice caps are not shrinking as claimed.
There is no way anyone can measure carbon footprints, etc, in order to tax carbons. Every we exhale we admit carbon, do we need to wear a respirator with a meter? And what about some of the green alternatives we have come up with? Light bulbs which are loaded with mercury which we can't dispose of, electric cars which use more energy to make and recharge then they will save in a lifetime of use.
Global warming is one more way the progressives want to control everything we do.
Another very good Hub! surprised you actually live in mass.
Danny, living in the land of the left builds character
junkseller
Of course, I don't know what I'm talking about. Of course not. Only the Global Warming fascists know what is truth and what is false in this world. You people know what's best for us all. It is all a pack of lies that the Global Warming cabal have been caught with their pants down at least twice fixing the numbers to conclude that the earth is warming due to human activity. We are being told that cows farting contribute to global warming, that grilling out on July 4th is a cause. What was the reason for global warming when the Mastodons went extinct? Was it because they farted too much also? You say your scientific evidence is proof enough. There are scientists that are blackballed due to their belief that the entire global warming ideology (and that is exactly what it is) is a hoax. This is a list of scientists who think the global warming model data is inaccurate, being too low or too high. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_op
As imjustmusing stated, in the 60s, Saturday Evening Post, Time Magazine all warned us of an impending ice age. Now, we are being warned of just the opposite. You people want control, control of lives to do as you so desire. 50 years ago, people engaged in "duck and cover" as a means to escape nuclear annihilation. We laugh about that now. 50 years from now, people will be laughing at you people for the same laughable reasons.
Writer David, Hear Hear
Mustang - First of all, ignore the comments about the TPM. Most of those come from people who have no idea about our grass roots movement.
Global warming is the biggest hoax every perpetuated upon mankind. When it was proven that scientists were cooking the books using the data collected I knew what it was all about - money.
Al Gore, who also supposedly invented the internet, is a nut job who has made a virtual fortune from pushing a flawed idea. I will leave it at that. His carbon footprint is quite large with the life style he has chosen to lead.
The Frog
@Writer David,
You don't even know the name of the university that was hacked into, but are still going to use the "book cooking" as evidence against climate change, despite also not knowing anything about what the supposed book cooking entailed, and without knowing the significant amount of effort that went into investigating the alleged scam?
You have self-proclaimed your OWN ignorance of the material, you can't very well complain if someone agrees with you. If you want to continue using the climategate argument than you really should actually learn something about it. That seems prudent to me.
Of course there are some scientists and people who disagree with climate change. I could probably find a list of people who don't believe in gravity, but what I couldn't find is anyone with actual scientific evidence that provides a different explanation to explain gravity, just as there isn't anyone with scientific evidence that offers an alternative to climate change. Yes, lots of things can alter global energy balances, such as the sun, but nothing else in our case fits the given data.
There are some legitimate scientists that are skeptical about climate change, especially regarding things like the historical temperature record, but their skepticism alone doesn't disprove the theory. Disproving the theory can only be the result of newer and better scientific research.
Scientists don't want control. They only want to tell you what is happening. It is up to you and your politicians to decide what to do about it. Politicians may want control, but that is hardly something that only Democrats are guilty of. Corporations, I think, definitely want control. Do you really think the automobile world we live in is entirely of our choosing? The most powerful corporations on the planet are fossil fuel dependent organizations. Do you really think they aren't trying to exert control? Do you really think Al Gore has more muscle than they do?
@imjustmusing
It is a little bit of a trick question, since the terminology hasn’t actually changed; they mean different things. Global warming refers to rising global average temperatures while climate change refers to changes in all climactic variables, including temperature, sea level, weather patterns, etc. Both of these terms have been used scientifically for a long time, it is just as the science has developed, especially in regards to overall climate impacts, it is more likely that scientists are working on, talking about, or researching climate change rather than just global warming. If scientists use one term over another, like the UN does now, it is because they are talking about something different, not because they have changed the meaning of the terms.
Of course regular people don’t really care for the scientific distinction and will generally use the terms interchangeably. And in truth, it is probably conservatives not liberals who are more likely to favor climate change over global warming, since it seems less grim and allows for the possibility that the globe is actually cooling as some like to suggest. The point is that the scientific community has never changed the term from one to the other. That is just a myth, most often used by global warming opponents as supposed evidence of a hoax.
The problem with the term global warming in general usage is that people often think that it means that the entire globe is equally and universally getting warmer. Then they have an extra cool winter and start calling global warming baloney. The reality is that global climate is extremely complex and nuanced. Changes in global climate will not be universal and equal. I’m not sure what ice caps you are referring to, but it seems like I saw evidence recently that part of the Antarctic ice mass was growing. That doesn’t disprove global warming, it simply proves that the effects of global warming (climate change) are complex and nuanced.
I’m never entirely sure what is supposed to be so terrible about things like carbon taxes or cap-and-trade schemes. People opposed to these things make them sound a bit doomsdayish, but rarely ever give specific reasons for why it would be so terrible. Transitioning from one technological regime to another may in fact be detrimental to the technology being phased-out, there are also benefits that will come from the new technology. There are for instance a number of benefits from moving towards renewable energy: fossil fuels will eventually run out, it will reduce our dependence on foreign energy, it will reduce pollution in general, and we could be a world leader in a future technology. Assessing a policy by only considering the negatives doesn’t make sense to me. Rejecting newer more advanced technology in favor of old obsolete technology has never worked out well for anyone.
Pollution is an externality. It is a cost one entity creates but doesn’t pay for and instead passes off to be a burden on the rest of humanity. Progressives aren’t interested in controlling anyone. In fact it is quite the opposite. They are simply attempting to shift the burden of paying for pollution to those responsible for creating it. That isn’t control; it is freedom for the rest of us to not have to pay for the actions of others.
From what I understand about carbon taxing it would be a tax placed upon the carbon content in fuels, rather than a tax on emissions, so we won’t have to go around wearing gas masks or monitoring cow farts.
I’m all for skepticism. I find no fault in yours, and as my elder, will defer to your greater wisdom. If you smell something fishy there is probably a reason for it. Even though I agree with the science, I don’t really much like what any of our politicians have done about it either. I wouldn’t give Al Gore a penny any more than you would. My only argument is that over all I think the science is pretty darn good. It is hard to know that because most people are a bit removed from the actual science and their connection to it always comes through the filter of commentators and politicians. The objective science doesn’t ever tell us what to do, it only tells us what is. In this case the objective science is telling us with a high level of certainty that the Earth is warming as a result of human releases of CO2 (and other GHGs). It doesn’t say we should tax carbon, make Al Gore rich, destroy fossil fuel companies, or do anything at all.
IJM,
I'm a Tea Partier too, and I have just as much concern about the validity of the gloabal warming theory. While I appreciate that excessive CO2 emissions can be a health hazard, you can't factor gloabal warming into carbon emission rules until (1) you can prove the theory is true, and (2) you can reliably estimate the environmenatl impact from gloabal warming for various levels of carbon emissions.
The problem here is that scientists who refute the theory have in many cases been blackballed from the scientific community, so the public is not seeing a balanced debate. Gloabal warming, a scientific issue, has taken on a decidedly political bent. The result is that conclusions must be viewed as suspect.
While it's true that excluding the 2010-2011 winter, we have have about ten unusually warm winters in a row. But we don't have sufficient historical records to determine how many decades had unusually warm or cold weather. We thus don't know at this point whether the ten year period of warm winters was a statistical fluctuation that has occurred before.
I'm not a scientist, and I have no way of knowing whether the gloabal warming theory is true or false. But we sure shouldn't be making policy based on a theory until it can be verified, and its impact quantified.
Stu
junkseller
So, because I don't know the name of the school (it is in England, look it up), does that mean the emails revealing that data manipulation, in favor of manmade global warming, did not take place? Is that your entire ridiculous argument??? I mean, is that it? I notice you have not come out and actually discussed the manipulation of data by these scientists to "prove" global warming actually happened. You are tap dancing around the issue altogether. I'm ignorant because I didn't know the name of the school? LOL Do you see why you people are the laughingstock of the entire world, the world with common sense? Let me take your deductive reasoning to it's logical conclusion.
Do you know the name of the man or men who assassinated President James Garfield? If you don't know their name, then it never took place. President Garfield wasn't assassinated and he was president for more than four months. That is the gist of your "reasoning." Yet, I'm ignorant. Well, welcome to the club. We got more room for another member, even someone who is so gullible.
Global warming has occurred throughout the history of this planet. Most recently, when the Mastodons went extinct. Was it their farting or grilling hamburgers that caused it? I'm sure even global warming fascists will agree that is not likely. You state that the earth is warming and humans are doing it. Really? Then how do you explain the global warming of centuries past? Methane gas? Or is it some other asinine theory that you want to bring forth. This entire discussion is ridiculous. You people take a theory and decide this is truth. You have a charlatan like AlGore promoting your "fantasy island science" and take it as fact. "The debate is over....we only have X number of days to save the planet!" P.T. Barnum was right. Apparently, he was referring to the Global Warming dupes.
You state that you acknowledge there are scientists who are skeptical of the data of the global warming model, but also say, "There are not two sides to science; there is only a body of knowledge." So, how do you know which is right? The fact is, you don't know. None of you know with absolute certainty it is the human factor that is causing global warming (which I dispute is actually taking place...if it is being manipulated, then how can you actually say there is warming of the earth?). But, yet, you are ready to tax people on a carbon footprint when fatass cows like AlGore and George Soros fly around the world laughing at the "ignorant" dupes who have bought in to their scam. AlGore is a multi-multi-millionaire now, far more than before "A Convenient Truth" came out to start this entire nonsense. Gee, I wonder how that happened? When this entire nonsense is disproven, do you people go back to crying against nuclear power or maybe go back to screaming about a new Ice Age? Always something with progressives, ALWAYS.
@Writer David
I don't need to look up the school. I already knew it. I have also read the emails in question, reviewed the criticism of their work as well as summaries of the investigations that were done to examine their research.
The investigations have all concluded that there was NO "data manipulation" nor did their research in any way at all invalidate the overall consensus of man-made global warming (AGW). The theory of global warming is built by many different threads of knowledge by thousands of scientists all over the world with work done for decades. Even if there had been something these scientists had done wrong, they are still a single thread in a large tapestry. Even if they had made a mistake it wouldn't really even put much of a dent in the overall theory.
If I was making an argument about the assassination of James Garfield and didn't know anything about the assassination of James Garfield than yes that is the very definition of being ignorant.
You are making an argument about global warming using "climategate" as evidence, yet you know NOTHING about it - yes, that is being ignorant.
I never said the East Anglia incident never happened, I only said that there was no data manipulation nor was there anything that in any way invalidated AGW.
It doesn't really matter why the world warmed up before. It matters why it is now. If you, or anyone, has a better theory than what is it? You talk about global warming being disproven, well, what are you waiting for? The entire world is free to develop alternative theories and to disprove the given theory, and yet there is still nothing. Not one single peer reviewed scientific piece of evidence that supports an alternative theory or places any serious burden of doubt on the current one. You people go on and on and on and yet for all of it can't put a single piece of paper on the table. Yet, I am the one being laughed at?
I don't really know what your love affair with Al Gore is, but you might want to consider therapy or something. I can quite honestly say that I have never heard a single word that man has said. You are the one who can't stop talking about him.
Science isn't about absolute certainty. You don't seem to understand that. Science proposes hypothesis and than tests them. As they are tested and evidence is developed to support the hypothesis it becomes a theory. A theory isn't truth, it is a body of knowledge (a set of evidence) which explains an observed phenomenon. It isn't about right or wrong. It is about a group of professionals who are giving you their best assessment of what is happening in the world. Of course they can be wrong, and they are the first ones who will tell you so, but they will also tell you how likely it is that they are right. Currently, the overall theory of AGW stands at about 90% certainty. In the scientific world, that is pretty significant certainty. Not every one is as certain; some are more certain. Being a skeptic means you are less certain. That's all. But there is still only one body of knowledge. It includes the work of the skeptics. Think of it as a tug-of-war if you like. Everyone is still in the same game.
If you go to the doctor and he tells you that you likely have cancer, they could be wrong, but most prudent people I think would take that pretty seriously. If you then went and got 9 more opinions and 9 out of 10 total agreed with the cancer diagnosis, I think most people wouldn't hesitate to start treatment for cancer. That is essentially our situation today. We have global warming and it has been confirmed by thousands of scientists. You are entirely free to ignore it. You can go treat your condition by some evangelical faith healer or with voodoo. That's your business.
My point is to defend the science - NOT POLITICIANS, and certainly not Al Gore. I have not once argued for taxing carbon footprints. I have not argued for any political option at all. The science, however, is solid.
Junkseller:
The issue with such things as carbon credits, etc. is two fold.
1. There is no way to measure carbon emissions to tax them.
2. Cap and trade and carbon taxing schemes impose more costs and regulations on businesses, and since countries like China will not follow the rules, or since some countries are exempt, this will give an unfair competitive advantage to some countries, further hurting the US economy.
Unless you impose equal restrictions on everyone, what good is controlling emissions from the US but not say India? Will their emissions stay over India and only harm them? I don't think so.
Regarding the TPM, I am a believer in it and am tired of being bashed for it, which is the reason for this hub and 21 more to come, refuting each of the points (or insults) depending on your point of view, made in the original hub.
It is interesting how the left gets in an uproar when someone attacks their beliefs, ie global warming, and whine about it, yet they do the same about our beliefs without a second thought.
Time to fight back.
junkseller,
I find it somewhat hypocritical of progressives like you who demand that everyone know precisely the details of each incident in this debate (even though it is over, according to the global warming fascists). Yet, you simply state there was no manipulation of data at the school in England without providing any proof or refutation to the claims made. In your subjective world, if you say something, then it must be true. Nothing to back it up, but you said, so it must be true. That, sir, is the very definition of ignorance. You can chastise me all you wish for simply not remembering the name of the school. But, the point stands....data was manipulated. That one incident proved to most people this entire global warming scam is just that, a scam. Well, not to people who are gullible. You say you read the emails and found no data manipulation. How in the hell can you say such a thing? You people talk about conservatives as being led by the nose. It is you people who are incapable of independent thought. Everything I've seen from you is line by line of the Global Warming Manifesto.
I wasn't aware that I had a love affair with AlGore. I might be the only one who hasn't, however. Maybe Tipper can shed some light on this for you...if she can get all the names correct, of course. My point on Garfield was prove the lunacy of your position. Apparently, it went over your head like a Exocet missile.
The point about climategate, and why I keep hammering away at this, if you make a scientific deduction, then it must be bereft of any intentional wrongdoing on their part. It is incumbent upon the global warming proponents to prove their claim. However, as you have done here, the global warming Ideologues feel it is incumbent upon those who do not believe their "theory." If you really believe in this ideology, then you need to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt you are correct without manipulation as has been shouted about since the incident that I refuse to name for fear of angering you further now.
Your proof, along with your believers, is that global warming is conclusive beyond a shadow of a doubt, despite many scientists (sorry, I am not going to give all their names for you) believing otherwise. You make subjective statements such as "there was no manipulation of data" without any reasoning behind it. You stated there is global warming due to human activity, without any reasoning behind it. You state you don't know why there were incidents of global warming in the past when man was not a factor. Yet, here you are claiming that global warming is caused by man. Why not blame the Mastodons now as well? Why not blame cow chips? Why not blame AlGore and his luxury jets?
You, like so many others of your ilk, are hypocrites. You are zealots who can not be reasoned with. Believe as you wish. You are making yourselves appear as fools for the entire world to see.
imjustmusing,
It is standard procedure for progressives. Throughout history, they have shown themselves to be violent. Notice the global anarchists who demonstrate at any G8 meeting across the world. They are violent. You remember when the TP went to town halls and SEIU thugs attacked little old ladies and blacks who dared to show they were conservatives? As Ann Coulter has stated many times, liberals are basically cowards. If they are not backed up by a mob, they cringe in fear. If they are in a mob, they become violent. Really ad homenim attacks are the only way they can get their beliefs noticed. If not for this, they would be ignored. They know all about ignorance. They have a patent on the word. Great hub, hope to see you at mine sometime.
There is also Global Cooling, and Climate Shift.
The big problem is not classifying the problems, but trying to find solutions.
In California they put a known carcinogen MTBA into the gasoline for air quality. Now they have replaced it with Ethanol. The only solutions that they provided was a higher cost for gasoline in CA compared with the rest of the country.
Science Assessment Panel April 14, 2010
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstate
“We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit” (5).
-----------------------
Pennsylvania State University February 3, 2010.
http://theprojectonclimatescience.org/wp-content/u
“…there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data.”
“The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field.”
-------------------------
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee March 24 2010
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/
“Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community.”
“We are content that the phrases such as “trick” or “hiding the decline” were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead. Likewise the evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process.”
“We therefore conclude that there is independent verification, through the use of other methodologies and other sources of data, of the results and conclusions of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.”
---------------------------
Here are some more to review. I’m not going to fill up more space pulling quotes from them.
Department of Commerce February 18, 2011
http://www.oig.doc.gov/OIGPublications/2011.02.18_
University of East Anglia July 2010
http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf
Environmental Protection Agency
http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petition
UK Government September 2010
I dont really care what name people go by or what group they are affliated to. what i do mind is people like sarah purposely speaking what amounts to exaggerated distorted=untruths targeting another person or group who disagrees w her just to make hay and get the people in the grandstand to jump up. another perfect example of this type of distortion is found in the evolution vs creationist debate. very intelligent highly respected people are distorting science to may hay w the grandstand and debunk evolution theory w outragous statements like..evolution is NOT possible because it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. this outragous claim is never followed by any proofs or equations to back up the science, it just darn sounds so good, the guy who said it is some kind of genius so it must have merit right. wrong. the world IS changing and we must respond to these changes as best we can.
Writer David Level 2 Commenter 10 months ago
A very good hub. What few discuss on this subject of Global Warming aka "Climate Change" aka anything-to-cover-our-agenda, is the number of times that these proponents have been caught "cooking the books" to strengthen their arguments. Now, the proponents will say "What are you talking about in regard to cooking the books?" I'm not going to do their research for them. I forget the university that the email server was hacked into that exposed this whole thing. I want to say a university in Denmark, but I'm not sure.
Anyway, their fanaticism about global warming is what bothers me. Extremism in any form is something that needs further investigation. They say the debate is over...nothing left to discuss. If they are so sure in their position, why not continue the debate? I remember the proponents of Global Warming saying we had only 63 days to pass something similar to Kyoto Protocol or it would be too late. That was about 3 years ago. So, I suppose we are all doomed now.