The Good Fight

Thank goodness that the climate issue has been solved (no thanks to Lindsey)! The recently leaked revelations of internal email correspondence between the authors of the IPCC report indicates that data supporting their hypothesis of AGW has been seriously manipulated to support a crisis that never was. Even the New York Times has reported on the story, and multiple sources have confirmed the authenticity of the emails. Apparently someone with a conscience felt compelled to out the bogus data and its authors before it could all be deleted. An impending FOI order would have revealed it all, but the perpetrators of the greatest fraud in history have been undone by their own words and data.
We can all breathe a sigh of relief now that the coastline will NOT be underwater in 50 years, and the polar bears are safe, too. And now that there is no need to create a synthetic market in which to trade "carbon credits" designed to redistribute our wealth to third world countries, we can focus on important things like saving 22,000 people a year (at a cost of 2.5 T) who will die because they lack affordable health insurance. Of course, now that the jig is up on AGW, there will be winners and losers - Al Gore and GE will take a big hit monetarily, but the rest of us can keep our SUV's, incandescent light bulbs, and charcoal fueled barbecue grills. I plan on smoking a turkey on mine this thanksgiving. This year, I am thankful that the Earth has been saved from AGW, and the rest of us have been saved from Al Gore, Van Jones, and all the rest of the "oracles" who would have sacrificed us the green alter of "Change".

How convenient. Someone has found a few out of tens of thousands of e-mails that support your wishful thinking on climate change.
Now we can continue to send billions of dollars to counties that hate us so you can continue to drive your v-8 pickem'up truck.
Must be true, after all, it's what you want to hear.

Over 150 mb of emails is hardly "a few", and I don't want to send any money to countries that hate us - in fact we have been promised "independence from foreign oil" by every administration since Carter. We established a department of energy over forty years ago to help us become energy independent. That government entity has ballooned in size to over 12,000 employees, with a requested budget for 2010 of 26.4 billion dollars. HOW INDEPENDENT HAVE WE BECOME? We import more oil now than ever before. So the loco weed ignorant greenies think that more government is the solution? Yep, I'll keep my V8 van (which I work out of to produce something of value) and continue to resist the temptation of turning the next filthy, smelly, pierced, tattooed, bicycle riding know-it-all hipster greenie freak into a greasy stain on the hood of my truck. This may be too much to wrap your feeble brains around, but it is possible to have a clean environment and energy independence. We have all the resources we need here at home, but you folks who don't want us to drill here, build a nuke plant there, or put a wind farm off of our coast, ARE THE REASON WE STILL IMPORT SO MUCH ENERGY! If you really want energy independence, then shut your pie hole and get out of the way of US energy producers who want to develop our own resources. Who knows, they might even create some jobs for Americans in the process. As usual, the truth isn't what y'all want to hear, especially if it runs counter to your twisted, "progressive", one world government view. Wake up, dummy.

Teo out of three ain't bad. I'm for the nuke plant and the windmills, against digging up more fossil fuel to burn.
BTW, global warming is real, "dummy".

Fact: The planet has warmed and cooled thousands of times over billions of years. Fact: Solar activity and planetary eccentricity are known causes for warming and cooling trends. Fact: The two most abundant gases making up the Earth's atmosphere are Nitrogen and Oxygen. Carbon Dioxide is considered a trace gas making up far less than 1% of the atmosphere. Fact: The most abundant "greenhouse gas" is water vapor. (It's not the heat, it's the humidity, stupid.) Fact: Weather records cover just a few hundred years and "climate" data is constructed from a statistically insignificant sample of that data. Fact: The recently released emails expose the truth that climate "experts" conspired to manipulate the data to "prove" their hypothesis. Fact: Billions of dollars have been poured into the Anthropogenic Global Warming money pit, and billions more hinge on a theory based in junk science being pushed by politicians and scientific hacks with an agenda. Fact: The mentally unhinged will continue to cling to a false belief, because accepting the truth makes them uncomfortable. Dummy.

Fact: your lack of science education is appalling, "dummy".

You are a victim of "Manufactured Doubt".
Here are the perpetrators and how much they have spent to confuse you.
Don't feel bad about your gullibility, the tobacco companies perfected this type of dishonesty a long time ago.
Chevron $6,485,000
Exxon Mobil $4,657,000
BP America $4,270,000
ConocoPhillips $3,300,000
American Petroleum Institute $2,120,000
Marathon Oil Corporation $2,110,000
Peabody Investments Corp $1,110,000
Bituminous Coal Operators Association $980,000
Shell Oil Company $950,000
Arch Coal, Inc $940,000
Williams Companies $920,000
Flint Hills Resources $820,000
Occidental Petroleum Corporation $794,000
National Mining Association $770,000
American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity $714,000
Devon Energy $695,000
Sunoco $585,000
Independent Petroleum Association of America $434,000
Murphy Oil USA, Inc $430,000
Peabody Energy $420,000
Rio Tinto Services, Inc $394,000
America's Natural Gas Alliance $300,000
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America $290,000
El Paso Corporation $261,000
Spectra Energy $279,000
National Propane Gas Association $242,000
National Petrochemical & Refiners Association $240,000
Nexen, Inc $230,000
Denbury Resources $200,000
Nisource, Inc $180,000
Petroleum Marketers Association of America $170,000
Valero Energy Corporation $160,000
Bituminous Coal Operators Association $131,000
Natural Gas Supply Association $114,000
Tesoro Companies $119,000

Wow, a list of money spent on lobbying congress or buying advertising will surely refute the facts I raised. Why debate when you can obfuscate? How much money have those same energy companies given to the green lobby? Instead of celebrating the fact that AGW is not an imminent threat to mankind, the "true believers" will continue to live in denial. I feel sorry for you, but you won't persuade anyone with an open mind and a grasp of the facts.

Manufactured doubt works especially well on people who are hearing what they want to believe.

The opposite of "manufactured doubt" would be "irrational fear" supported by junk science. But we know that y'all don't want to argue the issue on science, because the data does not support your position. There are as many scientists standing in opposition to the theory of AGW as there are in support - and supporters of the theory usually stand to gain money or prestige from their positions. As to hearing what you want to believe: You want to believe that humans are evil and destroying nature. I believe that humans are a part of the natural order, and that God (gasp, yes GOD) placed an abundance of energy on the earth and gave us intellect to use that gift for constructive purposes. Man did not create this world and man cannot destroy it. If we wipe ourselves out with global thermonuclear war and the earth is clicking hot for a hundred years, the planet will survive. The atmosphere will remain and life will once again flourish, just as it did after the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago. There will be periods of global warming and cooling in the next ten thousand years whether we are here or not. We are more likely to be wiped out by another asteroid impact, disease, or manufactured biological pandemic than by the natural cycles of warming and cooling caused by solar activity. Going back to horse and buggy times by neutering ourselves of the energy that could be used to solve real problems is what the progressive movement wants. "America is bad and must be punished for its excess, and our wealth must be redistributed to third world nations to atone for our sins", is the mantra of the green leftists, and that sort of crap works especially well on people who are possessed with self loathing and a hatred for the country they live in. So why don't y'all move to Cuba where the economy is green, the health care is great, and everyone is a happy member of the socialist worker's paradise? Maybe you could use your brilliant capabilities of reason and logic to talk some sense into those poor dupes who risk life and limb to board makeshift rafts bound for the evil empire 90 miles to the north.

1." But we know that y'all don't want to argue the issue on science, because the data does not support your position. "
Not my position, just that of pretty much every reputable scientist on the planet.
2. "If we wipe ourselves out with global thermonuclear war and the earth is clicking hot for a hundred years, the planet will survive. The atmosphere will remain and life will once again flourish, just as it did after the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago."
Very good point, I agree. What has this to do with man made global warming?
3. "There will be periods of global warming and cooling in the next ten thousand years whether we are here or not."
True, but irrelevent. What we are trying to prevent is the additional warming due to greenhouse gasses, mostly CO2.
4. "So why don't y'all move to Cuba where the economy is green, the health care is great, and everyone is a happy member of the socialist worker's paradise?"
Oh so if I don't agree with you I should leave? I don't think so. Maybe you should leave? Since yours is the minority opinion, after all.

BTW, what are your qualifications that make you right and all of these highly educated scientists wrong?

Qualifications: Intellect, governed by reason, using objective facts. Hundreds of reputable scientists have signed letters objecting to the conclusions published in the IPCC report.
Here are the facts on AGW:

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-war…

If, after reading the entire article, you can honestly support AGW, then you will be doing so based on irrational fear. I have watched Al Gore's movie, and have done research on this subject for years, using reputable scientists and their work to draw my own conclusions. The reason the green lobby has to work so hard on propaganda is because a majority of people still don't (and shouldn't) believe in AGW.

Let me be clear about my "agenda". As a consumer of energy, I don't want my wealth to be redistributed to an industry founded on lies and supported by junk science. The President is on record (video clip is on the web) saying that "Under my system of cap and trade, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." I want a clean planet. I want energy independence. I want cheap, abundant energy for all. I don't want to be dependent on hostile foreign entities for energy. I don't want my money pissed away to support yet another government grab of wealth and freedom. I don't want to be lectured at by ill informed nitwits who cling to a false "green" religion, because it happens to fit with their own twisted world view. I will continue to debate and inform those who attempt to spread the lie, and I will not lose, because the truth is on my side, and "a powerful ally it is" (Yoda). So yeah, I'm done with you. If you want to believe in junk science - go ahead. You can believe in the Great Pumpkin with thousands of other lunkheads too, but it still won't make it real.

Follow the link. Find the truth. Get a life. I triple dog dare you!

"Some of this is actually good. We do need to cut down on our use of petroleum fuels, because they're becoming more and more expensive to find and recover - and as Will Rogers said, "They're making more people every day, but they ain't making any more dirt." Green is good, and we here at the Community Network try very hard to be good stewards of the environment. We recycle everything, drive 2nd-hand cars that get high gas mileage, and even had only one offspring - thus gaining one whole human lifetime of "carbon credits". It is overpopulation, after all, that is using up our resources at an ever-increasing rate. So the Great Global Warming Hoax could have a unintended positive side in energy conservation, and even Hitler made the trains run on time in Nazi Germany."

The best part of that article.

Now, one for you to read:
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMaste…

Still waiting to hear your qualifications on this subject.

From your link:
"the industry understood that the public is in no position to distinguish good science from bad. Create doubt, uncertainty, and confusion." Just what Al Gore's movie did.

From your previous post:
"What we are trying to prevent is the additional warming due to greenhouse gasses, mostly CO2."

From the link I provided;
"In short, the laws of physics don't seem to allow CO2 it's currently assumed place as a significant "greenhouse gas" based on present concentrations. The other "greenhouse gases" such as methane, nitrous oxide, tetrafluoromethane, hexafluoroethane, sulfur hexafluoride, trifluoromethane, 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane, and 1,1-difluoroethane exist only in extraordinarily smaller amounts and aren't even up for serious discussion by any segment of the scientific community. And, since the other components of the atmosphere (oxygen, nitrogen, and water vapor) aren't materially affected by human activity, the "greenhouse effect" is essentially a totally natural phenomenon, unaffected by human activity. We could repeat the spectral analysis and calculations for Oxygen, or O2 ( The percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere remains exactly the same at all heights up to about 85 km, and is about 20.9% by volume ) and Nitrogen (N2) which is the whopper at 78.1% - but we won't. We'll leave that as your homework problem now that you know how to do it. Just look up the atomic absorption spectra for both, and do the math. You'll discover that Oxygen and Nitrogen aren't even "greenhouse gases", so that leaves the principal greenhouse gas... you guessed it.... Water Vapor. Curiously enough, the UN IPCC reports don't even mention water vapor, since it is technically not a "gas" in the atmosphere."

Question: Would it benefit energy companies and the government to participate in a scam that causes energy costs to "necessarily skyrocket". Sounds like higher prices means higher profits (remember how big oil cleaned up with $4 a gallon gas?) and tax revenues for the big government/big energy coalition. Maybe it's time to follow the money.

Another Question: If this is an imminent threat, why not ban fossil fuels altogether and "save the planet"? Could it be the same reason that tobacco is still legal (but heavily taxed)? Couldn't we save thousands of lives by banning tobacco products altogether? My doubt is not manufactured. It is quite real and supported by a mountain of good science. Which is more likely - "manufactured doubt" or a manufactured "crisis" requiring a fix that can only be provided by the unholy union of Big Energy and Big Government? Why won't China, India, or Russia sign on to this scam at Copenhagen? Could it be that they know it's a con game? Maybe they don't want to commit economic suicide. Why would our government sign something unilaterally that will decimate any potential economic recovery and provide no fix for a problem that never was? Remember when congress went after Big Oil because of their excessive profits? Could it be that cap and tax is a way for the government to get "their cut" in the biggest scam ever? The con is on. The government and big energy are the con men and the American taxpayers and energy consumers are the marks.
As to my qualifications on the subject, I gave them in a previous post, but let me elaborate: I have a master's degree in sniffing out bullshit - and this AGW pile of crap stinks from a mile away.

What are your qualifications? A do good attitude and a genuine concern for the planet?

What evidence do you have that CO2 is a dangerous greenhouse gas? A bogus hockey stick chart from Michael Mann, a documentary from Al Gore, and a purloined picture of polar bears frolicking on a drifting iceberg.

I have no issue with using energy more efficiently, as that would mean savings for me and less profits for Big Energy. But a manufactured "crisis" based on junk science that steals my wealth and freedom is another issue altogether.

I guess I'm just a radical with an inherent distrust of government and big business. Here's another radical thought: Some of those folks in congress might be corrupt. Some could even be "on the take" with Big Energy.

My qualifications: BSEE. Which means lots of math and science.
And I doubt you really understand this subject.

Use your math and science to refute Dr. Peden's statement that "CO2 is a trace gas that cannot possibly be responsible for AGW". Use your math and science to explain how the solar activity is NOT responsible for "climate change", and that it's all human activity. As to your qualifications: They mean nothing. Plenty of scientists involved in pushing the scam have doctoral degrees in a variety of scientific disciplines. The same can be said of the growing scientific community that now stands in opposition of AGW. The difference is that if you want a juicy government grant, it better have "studying AGW" somewhere in the application if you want funding. Scientists have to eat, too.

Is it possible that as the sun warms the earth, plant life increases. As plant life flourishes, herbivores flourish. With more herbivores dispelling CO2 from their mouths and methane from their asses, and more plant life and herbivores dying and decaying in wetlands, the rain forests, the swamps, and everywhere else on planet earth, that CO2 and methane levels go up? The point is that elevated CO2 levels FOLLOW global warming. The entire AGW model is based on the "fact" that CO2 increases precede warming. Real scientific research shows exactly the opposite. That's why Dr. Mann's flawed hockey stick graph is the smoking gun for this whole scam, and the reason scientists at the CRU were attempting to yet again manipulate the data sets to keep the AGW money train running on time. The emails were released by someone on the inside. I don't think Big Energy is happy about this email dump.

You want to argue over everything but the science. Why? If the "science is settled" why don't you post the data sets that prove your position. Could it be that your belief is a matter of faith, reinforced by your own view of man's place in the natural order?

You still haven't answered my questions.

1. Does Big Energy (who will pass along all costs to the consumer) stand to gain or lose from cap and trade?

2. Does Big Government (who will reap the benefits of taxation on a synthetic carbon credit market) stand to gain or lose from cap and trade?

3. Do consumers of energy (who will bear the burden of this government grab of wealth and power) stand to gain or lose from cap and trade?

4. Is it possible that you have been duped, and if you had evidence proving it, would you ever admit that you were wrong? (That's the tough one. I know. Been there, done that. It's still possible to be a "crusader", but now I am on the enlightened underdog side, with a massive propaganda army before me. Bring it on.)

Oh, yeah. I forgot this:

"My qualifications: BSEE. Which means lots of math and science.
And I doubt you really understand this subject."

Sounds like more "manufactured doubt" to me.

I'm not wasting any more time on someone who only believes what he wants to hear.
By3.

Ditto:

But it is you who doesn't want to believe the truth.

Time will tell. We'll see.

What makes you think I'm a "he"?