Heck Of A Job, Climate Alarmists
By K. Daniel Glover | November 26, 2009
In the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, former President George W. Bush stood behind his emergency-response man, Michael Brown. "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job," Bush said.
But Brown actually was doing a lousy job and resigned within days of the hurricane because of his poor management.
Four years later, the spirit of Bush lives in Barack Obama's Environmental Protection Agency chief, Carol Browner. She offered her wholehearted endorsement to so-called climate scientists who for years, based on their own words, have been manipulating data, hiding it from the public, quashing dissent and blackballing anyone who dared not toe the environmental line.
"I'm sticking with the 2,500 scientists," Browner said in confirming her faith in cooked numbers and "settled science." "These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real."
In other words: Heck of a job, climate alarmists. With the help of biased journalists like Andrew Revkin and his editors at The New York Times, we'll have this "ClimateGate" scandal out of the news in no time. You just keep spinning, manipulating and hyping like you have been.
But the spin isn't going to work for Browner any more than it worked for Brownie. This story, as E. Thomas McClanahan of the Kansas City Star says, is not going away anytime soon. Even the climate alarmists now realize they can't control the grassroots peer-review system of the new media era.
"Before the Internet -- which has given ordinary people a way to fight back against the received wisdom of so-called 'wise elites' -- they might have gotten away with it," Lorrie Goldstein wrote in the Toronto Sun. "But not now, as knowledgeable climate bloggers are advancing the story and forcing the co-opted mainstream media to cover a scandal most would rather ignore."
[Cross-posted to The Enlightened Redneck. Hat tip to Don Surber]
K. Daniel Glover is the online communications strategist for AIM for Accuracy In Media. He has worked as an editor, writer and new media specialist in the Washington area since 1991, spending most of that time at National Journal and Congressional Quarterly.
7 Comments | Post a Comment
Here in Australia, Malcolm Turnbull, leader of Liberal Party, believes Global Warming is man made, and he will stick to it no matter what. So he has made an agreement with ALP Government re ETS. He is a wealthy man and he has a giant sized ego to match. He does not care if he destroys the Liberal Party as long a he gets his own way. Liberal Party wants to wait another 3 months but he will not wait. So Pensioners and low paid workers are suffering because of his policies.
Media bias is one thing. But we have just witnessed one of the greatest scandals of modern science, and it barely made the front page of the New York Times.
Late last week we got the word: hackers broke into the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit server. The stolen emails and documents were later made public.
1. Prominent environmental scientists organize a boycott of scientific journals if those journals publish scholarly material from global warming dissidents.
2. The scientists then orchestrate attacks on the dissidents because of their lack of scholarly material published in scientific journals.
3. The scientists block from the UN’s report on global warming evidence that is harmful to the anthropogenic global warming consensus.
4. The scientists, when faced with a freedom of information act request for their correspondence and data, delete the correspondence and data lest it be used against them.
5. The scientists fabricate data when their data fails to prove the earth is warming. In fact, in more than one case, scientists engaged in lengthy emails on how to insert additional made up data that would in turn cause their claims to stand out as legitimate.
Again: we’re dealing with fabricated and deleted data, and an orchestrated effort to undermine global warming dissidents. Faked data in particular is a big deal: many politicians are using eco-alarmism based on fear of global warming to assault American freedoms. So what does this mean for America if it turns out that all that global warming was a sham all along? What does it mean for America if it turns out that a few scientists at the top were actively involved in scientific fraud to promote their own agendas?
It is not too surprising to find that many “scientists” have been strategically promoting false data when it comes to global warming; it is far more surprising that major news networks are completely ignoring one of the largest scandals the modern scientific world has ever seen.
The fact is, this information could completely destroy any credibility global warming alarmists once claimed. And with the American economy hanging in the balance with the Cap and Trade legislation (The Climate Bill), it is dismaying, though not terribly surprising, that major news organizations are not plastering this information on every front page. It is shameful that “respectable” newspapers and networks are devoting more time to the Gosselins, Taylor Swift and Twilight than to covering the story that could make or break our constitutional republic.
So much for scientific investigation its been tossed aside along with the U.S. Constitution.
It’s all about TAXES!!!!
And many are levied on us indirectly thru business
Taxes on healthcare
Taxes on those who have their own…plus
Cap n Trade Taxes
More medicare taxes or medicare cuts
Taxes to pay off tarp loans in the form of higher interest rates and tighter credit
This is the democratic version of trickle down:
They take it all, hire more government workers, pay big salaries&benefits;, insulate themselves, and what they can’t figure out how to spend on themselves then trickles down to the peasants.
Get it now?
This link tells the whole story, except for what’s coming next:
Look closely at the Debt Clock in the above link, look at all the different places it effects Each Person “THEN” Each Taxpayer (You have to combine those numbers, they include housewives who do not work, children, and the poor who cannot pay, therefore we taxpayers pay it all.
There are two strategies at work going on, first do a search for Cloward and Piven, then look at Saul Alinsky to get an idea of where exactly we are headed, if Americans do not stop it in it’s tracks.
I have been asking people all across this site, in hundreds of articles we blog on, to call your Congress Reps, and Senators…especially if you are from Maine, where we have Snow and Lincoln, Republicans who have voted with the Democrats on a few occasions…they could be the difference on Health Care (ObamaCare). I even contact my Opposition Counterpoints (the Democrats/Liberals/Marxists), and do so at least once or twice a week.
If people sit on their butt’s and think, aw, someone else will do it…(what difference could I make by myself), then we are in big trouble. Simply die to the fact that you think that, then so are other people, then we let it happen to us, and then only complain afterwards.
If something is not done soon, we will have to revert to a One World Currency, then a One World Government, we lose our Freedoms.
Geez, when you have Katie Couric at CBS begin complaining about Obama, you know it must be bad.
Now a couple of British Climatologists have stepped down due to the released Climate Hoax emails, which many were published in several of the British newspapers, hell, they have better US News than we get here.
Another Professor of Climatology at Penn State now under investigation, but not by our Government, instead by the State A.G.‘s office.
Meanwhile our Government and the Media are saying it is an anti-world wide governmental movement, and they planted the emails.
November 27 at 1:14 pm | #1 | Link
In the beginning, I was alarmed simply for reasons that Big Business will ultimately benefit from the cap-and-trade program, which I oppose. Do you actually think a mandatory cap on emissions will stop large corporations who abuse GHG emissions? They’ll CONTINUE to abuse it and the Auction Permits will not give them incentives to reduce the emissions. They’ll simply buy more permits and if they do that, where’s the reduction? The reduction will be the poor small ranchers who have to pay taxes on farting animals, not to mention you and I having to pay higher fuel taxes to keep warm when the companies we deal with pass the costs on to us. There Scenarios, apparently, were the key factors that introduced this cap and trade system, I guess at one of their Geneva meetings. The Scenarios are alarming on their suggestions in different Scenarios.
The many scientists/professors use different systems in the same regions of the world and they seem to have major conflictions in their reporting. Some reports give conflicting material because none of them can decide whether to include certain demographics, amount of decades to use, or how many tree rings there really are on the giant Antarctica sapsucker (sarcasm), so ultimately, they report two systems within a region, which confuses even the scientists. One person, apparently still believes in the bogus hockey stick scheme which, apparently shows all testing as hockey stick graphs, because he didn’t us the proper testing beforehand, which I’m lost on.
There are also some members in different countries who try to outdo others by overriding them and going “to the top” with accusations. I think their problems are attempting is use too many justifications within the skeptic forums rather than ignoring skeptics; hence, the geo-political conflictions. They make the global warming issue fit their graphs. How else do you think they would get grants from international corporations, and world governments? Certainly they would like to continue with their calculations because they’re scientists with money coming in and many don’t so much care about the money as much as they care about the exposure/prestige when their article appears in a Scientific magazine. This gives them giant credibility (with the aid of mainstream media) and we all know the power of them and certain universities.
Their conflictions in reporting mechanizations suck and I think most of them are full of condensed owl crap. In the meantime better hit the lottery because the only ones that’ll be benefiting from “global warming” will be clipping Al Gore’s toenails.