Climategate Spin Machine Spools Up

MSNBC’s ridiculous story of the week for this week appears to be climate change.  Last week it was how the recession is unfairly singling out black workers.  There have been several stories on how bad global warming is for us humans, as well as how bad weather will be.  So, the spin machine is on track and getting warmed up for a high speed run in Copenhagen. 

President Obama will be in Copenhagen for the climate summit with over a hundred other countries, ostensibly to sign some kind of treaty whereby the evil US pays a penalty for being the richest country in the world to the poorest countries in the world.  (These may not be actual terms in any agreement, but this is the end game.)  The United States provides assistance to a lot of countries around the planet for a lot of reasons, mainly humanitarian aid.  But the UN has discovered a vehicle to allow them to lay claim to even more money:  climate change. 

The MSNBC article describes how the e-mails are being spun by Al Gore and others as unimportant and a distraction from the real issue.  Al Gore was interviewed by MSNBC (might as well stay as close to friendly waters as you can) and sneered the word “denier” when describing anyone who dared to disagree with him.  I may be a denier, Mr. Gore, but you sir, are a liar.  And your pants may be on fire, which causes the temperature of your behind to rise several degrees.  Better cut down on you methane emissions or we will slap a tax on you.

As I have lamented before on this blog, we are the victims of an elaborate hoax, and Mr. Gore has gotten even richer from it.  It’s no coincidence that he is ringing the alarm bell for global warming and owns a company that sells “carbon credits,” the alarmists way to ease the guilt of flying on a private jet.  Now, there appears to be evidence of what I have said before:  the “science” of global warming is flawed. 

Scientists use something called the scientific method to prove a hypothesis.  The hypothesis is an idea that a given system works in a certain way.  The scientist then uses tests and collects data to prove, or disprove, the hypothesis.  The scientist is bound by the data, and is not permitted to exclude data that disproves the hypothesis.  He is bound by truth.  Global warming “scientists” are bound by no such limitations.  And this has been proven by the East Anglia climatologists, whose e-mails have been leaked.  If the data doesn’t support our agenda, supress it. 

And the global warming freaks aren’t the only ones supressing information.  In March of this year, a study was done by the EPA about the science behind man-made global warming.  The report states clearly and in non-legalese that the science is flawed and that we cannot, therefore, decide on a course of action.  It would be like you looking at a map of  Detroit to get the route to you cousin’s house in Butte.  You know where you want to go, but don’t have an idea of how to get there with the info you have.  A link to a story about this report is here:

Read the story, hit the link to the report and decide for yourself.  This story was reported by CBS online, but not on the evening news.  Not anywhere in the mainstream media.

Global warming alarmists have a problem.  Data that doesn’t meet with their agenda is “tainted,” or “disqualified due to collection techniques.”  Of course, this assumes that global warming “scientists” collect any data at all.  For the most part, they rely on computer models that extrapolate temperatures out hundreds of years, based on temperature readings from the last one hundred years or so.  Now, I don’t know about you, but I suspect that the instrumentation used in 1860 to read temperature wasn’t quite as advanced as what we have now.  I also suspect that where the sensing devices used today may be providing skewed data based on where they are installed.  I’ve heard of temperature stations located next door to a building where the AC exhaust blows on the collection devices.  Or a place where the device is exposed to a light bulb.  Notice how none of these could cause a false reading LOWER than ambient?  Why would this be necessary?  Because the scientists need to ensure a result that will prove that the world is heating up and we are at fault. 

Maybe you think after reading all of this that I don’t believe in man-made global warming.  I don’t, but not because of politics.  I look at the science.  The data we have doesn’t support the idea that the earth is even warming up all that much, and the past decade has been the coldest on record.  I think before we make a bunch of trillion dollar decisions, the least we could do is collect some data.  Algore is famous for saying the polar ice cap is melting, but doesn’t mention which ice cap.  The northern ice cap has seen a reduction in size, but the southern ice cap has grown far beyond the northern caps retraction.  In other words, the caps have shifted.  The northern cap is smaller, the southern one larger.  Why is data like this repressed?  Remember last winter when the global warming wackos were warning us to stock up on plywood and get hurricane insurance because this year would be a rough one?  Not one hurricane hit the US.  We did get a tropical storm, but not one hurricane.  Why?  El Nino.  That’s right.  A predictable oceanic phenomenon wasn’t taken into account by the global warming wackos.  What else did they leave out? 

From the looks of things, a lot.  Look, at the Copenhagen summit, developing nations walked out of negotiations when the rest of the world wouldn’t pony up enough money.  For our part, we are in it for about $80 million, which is over a quarter of the $230 million proposed.   What is the money for?  Solar lanterns for the people of Zimbabwe’s huts.  That will really pull the people of Africa out of poverty.

This is about money.  Equalizing developing nations.  Using our money, the rest of the world will be developed.  That means “made richer.”  But don’t worry.  Poverty will still be rampant, government corruption will still be terrible, and people will still die at the hands of terrorists.

But at least the hut will be “green.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: