Global Warming Hoax Is Dying A Slow Death

The lies, the misrepresentations, the Nobel Peace Prizes, and the billions of dollars spent will soon be reminders of a hoax perpetrated on the world by a bunch of snake oil salesmen who only wanted to make a buck.

Al Gore and his followers beat the drum for man-made global warming and often claimed that the science was settled but it is more unsettled than ever now that the movement has been exposed. It is a hoax. It is a lie. It is not true.

“The global warming movement as we have known it is dead,” the brilliant analyst Walter Russell Mead says in his blog on The American Interest. It was done in by a combination of bad science and bad politics.

~snip~

Meantime, the IPCC – the body widely regarded, until now, as the ultimate authority on climate science – is looking worse and worse. After it was forced to retract its claim about melting glaciers, Mr. Pachauri dismissed the error as a one-off. But other IPCC claims have turned out to be just as groundless. The Globe and Mail

The fabric had a loose thread and someone pulled at it. Suddenly the entire thing started coming apart.

Some day future generations will look at all of this and wonder why we never tarred and feathered these people…

Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

17 Responses to “Global Warming Hoax Is Dying A Slow Death”

  1. Adam says:

    I guess you missed this part of the article:

    None of this is to say that global warming isn’t real, or that human activity doesn’t play a role, or that the IPCC is entirely wrong, or that measures to curb greenhouse-gas emissions aren’t valid. But the strategy pursued by activists (including scientists who have crossed the line into advocacy) has turned out to be fatally flawed.

    Yes, adjustments will be made in the politics that are at the front of climate change science but global warming will remain a concern and there’s no amount of lies you can spread to change that.

    • Big Dog says:

      I guess you missed the part where politics should NOT be part of science.

      The paragraph is speculation on the part of the person writing it. The strategy is flawed because the science is flawed. If it were sound then one would not need to have political advocacy.

      Global warming will remain a concern to those who profit from it. To those who understand that it is a natural occuring event it will not be much of a concern. I imagine a lot of people in our area would like a little GW right now…

      • Adam says:

        “I guess you missed the part where politics should NOT be part of science.”

        Perhaps not but since when has politics stayed out of anything? Since when has advocacy become a bad thing?

        “The paragraph is speculation on the part of the person writing it.”

        Right, but of course the part you cherry picked is just sound as can be? I guess it always looks sound when it fits your narrow, partisan Republican world view.

        • Big Dog says:

          It is not my partisan Republican world view, it is MY world view.

          You live in the echo chamber.

        • Adam says:

          “You live in the echo chamber.”

          This coming from a Republican who cites often repeated though easily refuted arguments against climate change in the vein of, “Hey it snowed today! Global warming is such a fraud.” or, “This is all just a natural occurring event. We’ll just grow oranges in Alaska.”

        • Blake says:

          The facts are that while human activity necessarily does change the world around us, it is not necessarily as bad as these paid “scientific” hacks would have you believe, nor is it necessary to spend such a goodly chunk of our tax money to PRIVATE enterprises who will profit off of scare mongering.
          There is much that can be done in our own back yards and hometowns to mitigate damage that people do- if the governments of the world really want to do something, have the UN charter retired oil tankers-turned-to garbage scows that can sweep the plastic trash from our oceans- now there’s a worthy project that is do-able.
          Make composting pay- if there’s a profit, private companies will do this on their own with no incentive from the government.
          The Swiss found a process whereby cinderblocks are made from garbage- do this-
          The plastic from bottles that lives forever? Chip it up, and mix it with asphalt to make a more durable road.
          All these things can be done WITHOUT tax money, and/ or government intrusion.
          Do the things we CAN, and forget the other things we cannot do.

  2. victoria says:

    http://tweetphoto.com/10629367 Al Gores New home on Capital Hill.
    This is funny.

  3. Jack Mildam says:

    Another week, another prediction that the “hoax has been exposed”!

    You wingnuts are funny….

  4. The Left wants a climate crisis worse than anything — even worse than a health-care crisis — because it could be used to justify a totalitarian State over all of Mankind. With the Left in charge, of course; we freedom weenies wouldn’t have anything to do with such a monstrosity.

    So now that the “evidence” for global warming has been shown to be faked or distorted tendentiously, all the computer models have failed every test of prediction, and the “researchers” themselves proved to be deceivers by their own words, all the warmistas have left is insult and invective against us “deniers.” Which, come to think of it, is par for the course with the Left. Communism survives on that basis alone.

    • Darrel says:

      Fran: “all the warmistas have left is insult”>>

      DAR
      Well, there are a few little bits of data like:

      “The past year, 2009, tied as the second warmest year in the 130 years of global instrumental temperature records, in the surface temperature analysis of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).”

      Link.

      You are terribly misinformed on this subject Francis. If you like to try and defend any of the assertions you just made, I promise you it would be instructive.

      Again, every single global warming denier argument you have ever floated, including the above stuff, is carefully dismantled in this short and well referenced article in Scientific American.

      November 30, 2009

      Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense.

      If you want to speak seriously about this subject, you need to get up to speed and that includes dealing with the material that demolishes the lies you have been told by ideologues who know nothing about science.

      D.
      —————
      Course, if you get your information from that climatologist Sean Hananity over at Fox, you get a different story:

      ***
      Sean Hannity keeps claiming that 2009 was the “coldest year on record.” He did it again… on Monday night.

      It’s not the first time. It is, in fact, the fourth time he has made this claim in recent weeks, or one like it (at first he claimed it was the “ninth coldest year on record” — the guy can’t even lie consistently).

      Debunk here.

      • Big Dog says:

        Scientific American, oooh.

        Climate gate, scientists lie for money. We will not have climate problems or global warming that is man caused.

        End of story.

        • Amazing, isn’t it? They keep tossing up their bogus data — none of which comes with an error bar — and their refuted models and conjectures, as if repetition could somehow turn a sow’s ear of noise into a silk purse of prediction.

          Oh, by the way, “Darrel,” I hold a PhD in physics, and my dissertation work was on gas turbulence, so I dare say I’m rather more informed and knowledgeable on the subject of energy transfer through a heterogeneous fluid medium than you are. So much for your supercilious emissions of scorn.

        • Adam says:

          Right, so now we can’t refute your anti-science garbage using the words of real scientists…because they lie for money? Well, that’s very convenient, isn’t it?

      • Darrel says:

        FRAN: “They keep tossing up their bogus data — none of which comes with an error bar —>>

        DAR
        Wrong.

        FRAN: and their refuted models and conjectures,>>

        DAR
        Forgot to bring any data for this one.

        FRAN: “Oh, by the way, “Darrel,” I hold a PhD in physics, and my dissertation work was on gas turbulence,”>>

        DAR
        So you’re an expert in farts. EXCELLENT. No, actually, I am very glad to hear it. Seriously. I just had dinner, as I do weekly, with my good friend and physicist on retainer. He received his PhD in physics in 1966, worked at Los Alamos, worked a bit with Feynman.

        Now, to show my cards… I have a high school degree and own nine goats here in Arkansas. So it seems we are pretty evenly matched.

        FRAN: “I dare say I’m rather more informed and knowledgeable on the subject of energy transfer through a heterogeneous fluid medium than you are.”>>

        DAR
        Well then we’ll see if any of that comes in handy when you are struggling to defend your extraordinary (and false) positions regarding climate change. I’m gonna go out on a limb and say no. You’re out of your field of expertise, you’re an ideologue and you’re sloppy. The record shows that having a degree doesn’t actually mean one knows how to think (critically), or construct an argument.

        FRAN: So much for your supercilious emissions of scorn.”>>

        DAR
        Oh you haven’t seen anything dear. I’m gonna open up a big can of extra grade whoop ass for you. And I can do it very politely if you like.

        Now, would you like to try and actually make a case for something here or would you like me to start by shredding the obvious howlers and factual misstatements of fact at the link you provided?

        Your choice.

        D.
        —————
        ps. I am familiar with the “error bar” angle you are going with and congratulations on at least using something creative and slightly new!

        pps. You could also try posting your best argument or two in our freethinker forum. We don’t censor, it’s easy to post pictures, edit posts etc. Here, your place, or mine. Let’s begin.

      • Darrel says:

        FRAN: ‘They keep tossing up their bogus data — none of which comes with an error bar “>>

        DAR
        Well I’ve tried to make a few comments in the comment section of Mr. Porretto’s article linked above, but they have all been censored.

        Apparently Mr. Porretto doesn’t tolerate informed dissent. This is understandable. Most of his claims are false, absurdly false (and that’s harder to do than you think).

        As with above. Contrary to what he claims, all scientific models and estimates of future scenarios have error bars. Every, single, one.

        When you lie, make it a big one eh Francis?

        Coward.

        D.
        ————-
        Big firm paw shake to Bigdog for not censoring dissenting opinion on his site. I had forgot how much I hate intellectual cowards like Francis W. Porretto and his ilk.

  5. Greg Robie says:

    One could hope that the why of ” why we never tarred and feathered these people…” is the Constitution & rule of law . . . besides “these people” being wrong for not being right enough.

    However, because the scientists are scientific, while the MSM and blogosphere exist as a badly scripted real world iteration of a reality TV show, big or small (left or right), our roles in this theater of the absurd means we leave behind a story for which the concept of “enemies… domestic” regarding protecting and defending the Constitution, is an understated euphemism.

    Can Dog thank God for a Constitution that protects a brilliant irresponsible (mis)use of free speech, while anti-Doggers can thank motivated reasoning for the pious feeling being anti-Dog invokes? As the social chaos continues to unfold and the flash frozen economic collapse subsequently thaws, it really won’t matter . . . beyond that the unrecorded story will be that this generation trusted the echos of IT enhanced pontifications and feelings while society committed economic, social, and environmental suicide.