Am I the only one getting tired of listening to the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) crowd as they attempt to downplay the significance of Climategate’s leaked e-mails?  They tell us over and over that these e-mails have an alternative interpretation, that this is a move on the part of special interests to impede change, that the researchers involved in passing these e-mails around are merely the victims of a heinous crime.  Enough with the nonsense, people!  %*)#.  Wake up, man!

Can you do me a favor and tell me what else this is supposed to mean, if it is not referring to global warming?  Once again, the most damaging e-mail blurb:

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.

You know, I’m just a forester, and I don’t have any degrees in English, not even three decades worth of experience speaking the English language yet, but it seems to me that the phrase “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.” can’t really mean anything but ‘the Earth isn’t getting warmer, no matter how we look at it’.  To the layman, those of us who are blue collar kinda people, that seems to be pretty straightforward.  I doubt he was talking about his convection oven, or his hot water heater, especially when he goes on to refer to climate data…

The “They’re victims!” tack is pretty snazzy too.  Take this quote from climateprogress.org:

Trenberth says,  “If you read all of these e-mails, you will be surprised at the integrity of these scientists.  The unfortunate thing about this is that people can cherry pick and take things out of context.”

Of course, he is talking about the people who are calling the CRU on their ethical violations, but what really strikes me as funny is that this guy, the one who authored the above e-mail, is accusing others of cherry picking data?

Hello?

This is getting world wide attention because they have e-mails of you and your cronies talking about cherry picking and manipulating data so you could advance your crusade!  This is what YOU have been doing as a career for years!

But the best one is the claim that this is an attack by “special interests”.  Check out this hack piece from the ever prestigious …  Hold on a second, I’ve got get a paper towel so I can wipe some of this sarcasm off my lips… Huffington Post:

As world attention turns to the climate conference in Copenhagen this December, this email hack acts as a distraction from the huge task at hand of getting world leaders to commit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As professor Richard Somerville says, “We’re facing an effort by special interests who are trying to confuse the public.”

Again, “trying to confuse the public” sounds like exactly the sort of thing the fellows at the CRU were engaged in for years.  Do you know how many billions of dollars have flowed into global warming research by parties which are, shall we say, not exactly impartial?

The CRU is the global warming equivalent of the Council for Tobacco Research. And they have the onions to claim that the people who get upset when they uncover an obvious fraud are the ones serving the special interests?  That’s even more annoying than Nancy Pelosi calling 80 year old WW2 veterans, who fought and defeated Hitler in Europe, Nazis for protesting health care reform last summer.

AGW is such an obvious hoax that I can’t believe that anyone gives it any credence whatsoever.  It takes all of thirty seconds to wipe your arse with this theory.  It’s so bad that I can’t believe Al Gore was able to sell even one copy of his book.

Totally ignoring the fact that 100 years worth of data is not a significant level of trial testing on which to found climate models (The Earth is billions of years old, we’ve got to have hundreds, if not thousands of years’ worth of data for statistically significant findings), everywhere you look, you see evidence that man is not responsible for any warming of the Earth which may, or may not, be going on.

Did you ever get a sun burn?  Might you think that maybe the sun has a direct effect on Earth’s surface temperature?

When reptiles evolved, they evolved a cold blooded circulatory system.  Think that happened over millions of years in response to a much cooler Earth?

How did the ancient people who would become the American Indians get here from Asia?  Didn’t they cross a land bridge?

Where is that land bridge now?  Under water?  You don’t say?  So the oceans have been rising for a bit, eh?

Mind telling us how our cavemen ancestors, armed only with sharp sticks and rocks brought about the end of the last ice age?

Ugh, it could drive you crazy.

Even more disturbing is that you never hear anyone debate the possible benefits of global warming!  What if global warming solved all kinds of problems for mankind?

Let’s start with our most immediate crisis: The world wide water shortage being experienced by 80 countries across the globe.  There’s a lot of water tied up in glaciers, water that isn’t being processed through the Earth’s water cycle to fall as rain, or get stored in reservoirs.  Maybe if the Earth heats up a bit, more people won’t be dying of thirst?

We’re facing massive food shortages around the world, as detailed by TIME magazine.  Well, can someone tell me how a longer growing season, more available water (see above), more arable land (no more glaciers, and we could plant father north), and higher concentrations of CO2 (which plants use like a human uses oxygen) would harm agriculture?  Sounds like we’d be seeing bumper crops the world over.

Let’s face it:  The science is really a religion on this one.  No examination of historical evidence, complete disregard for even basic statistics, and now, finally, written proof of this activity.  All the AGW crazies have is just a reliance on a majority of scientists agreeing on something, which is probably influenced by the amount of grant money available for it these days…

Consensus doth not the truth make.  Just ask the flat earth crowd how much consensus really means, or look up George W. Bush and see what the world wide consensus about there being WMDs in Iraq was worth.

Tweet  Print This Post

Tags: environment & nature, science // 1 Comment »