You Can't Wish Away Fools

Nobel Prize winner and former VP Albert A. Gore recently opined that “We can’t wish away Climate Change”. Indeed, the climate has been changing for billions of years before human beings even walked the earth. But, of course, that’s not what he meant. His cottage industry is making lots of guilt gelt. Gore earns beaucoup cheddar in the form of huge speaking fees and book and movie sales, all touting an alleged “man caused disaster” named Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). There’s a multi-billion dollar industry promoting the idea, that had its greedy eyes on becoming a multi-trillion dollar industry. But all of that is collapsing in the wake of Climate Gate. That leaves AGW shills like Gore to try to plug the holes in his sinking ship.

Gore claims all those mistakes, which were recently revealed, are no big deal. That they don’t prove AGW isn’t real. But the fact is, no one has proved it is real. There is a $500,000 challenge to prove it that no one has taken in three years now. There have been bets which Gore is still losing. And in fact, Climate gate proves the AGW proponents were engaged in deception and fraud, as the Institute of Physics recently stated to the UK Parliamentary Committee.

The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.

Yet Al Gore told us the CRU (Climate Research Unit) and the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) are composed of “real scientists” and anyone who disagrees with them are not credible. Or as Gore puts it in his NY Times piece: “a criminal generation that had selfishly and blithely ignored clear warnings that their fate was in our hands.”

If you want to take a gander at criminal behavior, a close look at how these crypto-socialists have tried to tax us into oblivion and regulate every aspect of our lives. It’s the largest criminal scam in history.

So what’s the MSM to do? The alphabet networks have invested so much time and effort propping up the AGW story. The “science” channels and magazines which have invested untold millions on “documentaries” endorsing the global warming meme. Are they going to throw away all that “work”? Are they going to say “Oops, we made a boo boo!”? As the Russians would say, nyet. When you’re that deeply invested in a scam, you don’t want to risk the police (or the public as the case may be) finding out you were a willing accomplice. If it all comes apart later you can claim you were “misled.” But right now they have a president still pushing the AGW cause. His administration is full of AGW believers prostrating themselves before the altar of their false god. They are desperately trying to raise everyone’s taxes and electric bills as an offering to this deity.

The public is getting wise to the con, but there are still enough suckers people buying into it. And that’s the hope these networks cling to like a moldy security blanket.

Loading Facebook Comments ...


  1. I’ve always been amazed at Gore’s “trick” he uses to make up for his own hypocrisy in personally using as much energy as an aircraft carrier — he buys “carbon credits” from his own company.
    If there was ever a better proof that carbon credits are a meaningless financial construct, I’m unaware of it.

  2. According to an opinion piece in Sunday’s OC Register:

    All greenhouse gases worldwide make up 2 percent of the atmosphere. Only 3.6 percent of that 2 percent is carbon dioxide. Only 3.4 percent of that 3.6 percent is man-made. If California shut down every man-made CO2-emitting source the result would be atmospherically unnoticeable. In fact, even using their favorite government and U.N. computer calculations, warmists admit that if every nation on Earth had rolled back CO2 emissions to the economy-killing extent called for in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, there would have been no noticeable change in global temperatures.

    STFU, Al.

  3. The issue, Dave, is that the man made Co2 in the atmosphere has been increasing for some time and is projected to double within the next century or so.
    The truth of the matter is that the state of climate science can not tell us what will happen in that eventuality with any kind of certainty.

    But what’s even more scary to me, more than all the AGW scenarios described by the Goricle, is that climate science has been badly politicized by the left. If the powers that be are rewarded for deconstructing science, well you can go ahead and write your own version of a post apocalyptic future.

  4. Actually, K, there have been periods where there earth had a lot more CO2 and these were periods that were colder than now. CO2 does not have any demonstrable effect on the climate. The sun does. And the fact that the AGW clowns refuse to accept the solar cycles are a factor shows what a joke they are.

    Check out the Joanne Nova PDFs. The latest is on this article in the link A CLOSER LOOK. She covers a lot of good information.

  5. K – read the first part again:

    “All greenhouse gases worldwide make up 2 percent of the atmosphere. Only 3.6 percent of that 2 percent is carbon dioxide. Only 3.4 percent of that 3.6 percent is man-made.”

    So take the 2% of all greenhouse gases. Now take 3.6% of that 2% – that’s CO2. Now take 3.4% of the CO2 – that’s man-made. We are talking infinitesimal. If it doubled over a century, it would still be a very small drop in the bucket.

    And as James notes, CO2 levels have been higher than now. Also, the Earth has been warmer than now (remember the Medieval Warm Period – the one that got removed from the overall massaged data because they couldn’t have the “hockey stick” graph without it?).

    Now, I’m not saying (and I’ve NEVER said) that we shouldn’t be good to the environment. Green energy? Sure. But it’s not affordable right now, compared to coal and oil. The technology at the affordable point yet for it to be widespread. The government can mandate all it wants about how much energy will come from “green sources” – although they seldom cite nuclear power – but if the tech isn’t affordable yet, it won’t happen. A somewhat extreme example: RIGHT NOW, the government can mandate that by 2150 all spaceships will be powered by plasma engines. Well, what if that tech isn’t there by 2150?

    I’ll say it again – STFU, Al.

  6. It should also be noted that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere does not double its greenhouse effect. There is a law of diminishing returns that applies. Beyond a certain point the CO2 “gets in the way of itself” so much it ceases to function as a greenhouse gas. That point is somewhere around double the amount currently present, which certainly fits with the findings of the Vostok and Greenland ice cores that periods with extremely high CO2 levels tend to be far colder than predicted by current GW theories.

  7. Check out the Joanne Nova PDFs

    If it were only that easy, my friend. At

    you’ll find sites listed which “debunk” Nova’s objections.

    The warmistas have their head down now, but they’ll be back. I’ve worked in science establishments of the type that employ people like James Hanson. Even non politically influenced scientists can be amazingly nearsighted and stubborn. When they have a political axe to grind and the grant money is all on one side of an issue you can bet we haven’t heard the last of it.

    • And that’s something that James has been saying for years – it’s all about the money. I found this quote awhile ago:

      “Those that will attack me for my views and call me a “denier,” or worse, a Republican, will also likely claim that the scientists I have cited are in the pocket of Big Oil. Very few scientists have taken money from Big Oil, simply because they don’t give that much out. True, they have given $20 million to fund climate change research over the past two decades. However, over that same period of time proponents of the theory of global warming have received $50 billion in funding. For those of you not mathematically inclined, $20 million is 0.004 of $50 billion. Who’s in whose pocket?” – Eric Creed

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

WordPress spam blocked by CleanTalk.