moonbattery.gif


« Hummers More Eco-Friendly Than Prius Moonbatmobiles | Main | Teachers Union Greed in Overdrive in Houston »


March 13, 2007

Global Warming Has Jumped the Shark

The spectacle of Al Gore being fawned over by mindless Tinseltown twits at the Oscars was the "jump the shark" moment for the whole phony global warming phenomenon. Next came Channel 4's devastating exposé. From here it shouldn't take long for the whole hoax to unravel. Already even the New York Times is attempting to salvage some credibility by admitting that the scientific "consensus" is a lie.

The Gray Lady quotes Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University:

I don't want to pick on Al Gore. But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.

Says Benny Peiser, who runs CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters:

Hardly a week goes by without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory.

Robert Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University, adds this:

Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet. Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.

Biologist Paul Reiter is annoyed by Gore's lie that global warming is spreading malaria:

For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims. We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.

Overall, the Times piece is supportive of Gore. But for the Gray Lady to acknowledge the Goracle's fallibility is a good indication that if you have any stock in the Great Global Warming Swindle, now might be a good time to sell.

al-gore_leonardo-dicaprio.jpg
Up and over the shark.

On a tip from V the K.

Posted by Van Helsing at March 13, 2007 3:31 PM

Comments

Read the last sentence of the article, it's a moonbat apology if I ever read one. There's no way the NYT would send Manbearpig packing and squealing into oblivion. Not yet, anyway.

Posted by: Doug at March 13, 2007 3:54 PM

It appears that the recent Channel 4 and More4 documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" has left many viewers doubting that today's climate change is largely humanly caused. In this email, anyone so affected by the programme is urged to view the following information:

1. An introduction to the flaws of the programme. http://climatedenial.org/2007/03/09/the-great-channel-four-swindle/ (or Google "climate denial", go to 9 Mar post.)

2. How a similar docu on Channel 4 by the same director Martin Durkin in 1997 was rapped by the ITC, in particular for misleading four featured interviewees and distorting their views. See Parags. 8-11 of http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2001694,00.html

3. Prof. Carl Wunsch says: I was misled and misrepresented in the 'swindle' documentary http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece

4. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=414 (or Google "Realclimate", go to 9 Mar post.) Climate scientists' view of some of the key flawed or discredited claims made by the programme (some of which you may have seen elsewhere). A site praised by Scientific American, with explanations for the medieval grapes, why Thames stopped freezing, and loads more.

5. http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3268874#post3268874 - with THAT graph clearly explained, plus a clear guide to the links of some of the interviewees.

6. Royal Society and science academies around the world joint statement on climate change: http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=3226 (or via Google "Royal Society").

7. A blog discussion on the programme, including details of apparent breaches of the Broadcasting Code, and how to complain. http://portal.campaigncc.org/node/1820 (or Google "Climate Campaign Portal".)

Posted by: Calvin Jones at March 13, 2007 4:50 PM

Last night, "The Day After Tomorrow" (possibly the only econut movie more absurd than Al Gores movie) aired and I saw it for the 1st time.

The first half of the movie was filled with alarmist claims and a hyperspeed ascent into an Ice Age fueled by Global Warming. Temperatures plunging to 125 degrees below zero in minutes knocking helicopters out of the air with frozen fuel lines. The image of Americans fleeing the cold wave into Mexico and referring to them as illegal immigrants. Its was Moonbattery at its best (ok, technically the worst). The 2nd half of the movie was a ripoff of a 1998 SCI-FI Channel movie called ICE, where the cast members went thru a frozen wasteland of America stumbling over frozen dead bodies and such. In ICE, it was the Sun's fault. In this movie it was the evil industrialized world.

At least now it seems people are waking up to the ridiculous claims of Al Gore and his Penguin Army of nutbags.

Posted by: General Jack D. Ripper at March 13, 2007 4:55 PM

Hm, doesn't Calvin's post have a whiff of desperate Scientology about it? Like some brainwashed Clear Thetan insisting, "Xenu is real, you just don't understand."

Xenu, meet Manbearpig. You have much in common. You're both imaginary. You're both part of a massive money-making con. And celebrities worship you.

Posted by: V the K at March 13, 2007 4:59 PM

First link, first sentence, "the international network of climate deniers" says everything I need to know about that site. Faced with a single broadcast taking an alternative view these people react by trying to get it shut down. Never mind that, while their alternative theory needs a lot of work, the program demonstrates key flaws in the CO2-as-primary-climate-driver theory that are routinely ignored by the anthropogenic climate change lobby. Now we finally have an alternative view on national television, and what's the reaction of these so-called scientists? "Shut it up! Shut it down! Consensus!"

Science is meant to be gathering empirical data to test a theory. That means attempting to poke holes in your theories, not trying to patch them up with computer models and ifs and maybes. Shouting down the opposition is not good science. It's not even good politics.

Posted by: Archonix at March 13, 2007 5:02 PM

Additional to the above: Most of the links calvin provides are actually sites repeating the same text almost word for word. I saw entire paragraphs from his first link that were identical to subsequent links. The "consensus" at work...

Posted by: Archonix at March 13, 2007 5:04 PM

I love the look on DiCaprio's face... he looks like he wants to kiss Rev. Gore.

The way Hollyweird libs adore this guy is just sickening!

Posted by: MoleOnABull at March 13, 2007 6:29 PM

"It appears that the recent Channel 4 and More4 documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" has left many viewers doubting that today's climate change is largely humanly caused. In this email, anyone so affected by the programme is urged to view the following information:"

It appears that the recent movie "An Inconvenient Truth" has left many viewers believing the world will soon be flooded over and beseiged by megastorms in a cataclysmic death spiral. Anyone so affected by "An Inconvenient Truth" is urged to view the following information:

(1) "The Scare Tactics of An Inconvenient Truth"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_21b7mdJz2M

(2) The following New York Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?_r=3&ref=science&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Posted by: Gored at March 13, 2007 9:32 PM

You know what really frightens me about the moonbats that insist on placing the blame for global warming on Man? I have yet to read of or hear one that says: I believe that we are facing this problem and we are to blame. But, I have too much respect for human freedom and dignity to wish to force on anyone what to do. I just want to try to convince you and, because human freedom and dignity must be respected, you do what you think is right.

But it seems to me that no one seems to be upholding the principles of freedom. Too many people want to use the government to force everyone else to do what they think is right. Al Gore very much frightens me because I don't think he would have any qualms at all of assuming dictatorial powers if he could, destroying our property rights, and in the end all of our rights including the right to our lives. Maybe that sounds like a needless, even a naive worry on my part. But I don't hear anyone, least of all Al Gore, talking of the importance of maintaining our freedom. If they did they would make their case for anthropocentric warming and then qualify it by stating that they don't want to impose tyranny, they don't want sweeping political programs that force everyone to do this and that, they believe in freedom, each person should act freely as they see right.

Anybody hear of any environmentalists that simply want to convince you and then leave you alone to act as you deem right as befits a free human being? No, they want to reshape society.

And Calvin Jones, here's a link for you: http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

Posted by: kevin at March 13, 2007 9:47 PM

You know what really frightens me about the moonbats that insist on placing the blame for global warming on Man? I have yet to read of or hear one that says: I believe that we are facing this problem and we are to blame.
Kevin

What scares me is that they believe global warming can be fixed with money. OUR money in THEIR pockets will save the world.

Reminds you of the American education system, huh? It can only be fixed with more of OUR money in THEIR pockets...

Global Warming apologists are thieves who deserve the end of a rope for the perpetrating the biggest swindle in the history of the world. They are low-life scum making a living out of scaring babies and stupid people.

Posted by: Jimbo at March 14, 2007 5:39 AM

I appreciate Calvin's posting of links (which I don't have time to follow just now) to support his arguments, more or less regardless of their content.

The biggest service "Global Warming Swindle" has offered is making global warming the subject of debate, rather than just a religious quest. Calvin's post is not a series of spluttering accusations, but a temperate response, and that alone is welcome.

Full disclosure: I am (and have always been) sceptical of global warming for two reasons. First, as anyone familiar with perturbation theory knows, one always treats perturbations in order of decreasing magnitude. In this case, that would be solar intensity, water vapor, and only then carbon dioxide. And the first two have been ignored (presumably as essentially unknowable). So focusing on CO2 is a classic case of looking for your watch under the lamp post because the light is so much better there.

Second, I've yet to hear global warming proponents offer any explanation of the Ice Ages. Ten thousand years ago Minnesota was covered in a glacier. It's not now, and hasn't been for a long time. Why?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at March 14, 2007 9:59 AM