This is the beginning of many full feature length articles that will come as the House of Mann-Made Global Warming collapses. It’s long, but when it’s a professional feature writer drawing a story of a professional scam-buster who works at the highest levels, it’s a great read. Enjoy 🙂 It’s not a grand scientific expose, but it does turn ClimateGate into a human interest story with momentum, and as such, it may reach a wider audience than any scientific expose could.
Photo: Mackenzie Stroh
This Man Wants to Convince You Global Warming Is a Hoax
Marc Morano broke the Swift Boat story and effectively stalled John Kerry’s presidential run. Now he is working against an even bigger enemy: belief in climate change. Somehow, he seems to be winning.
By John H. Richardson
Early on the morning of November 17, Gavin Schmidt sat down at his computer and entered his password. It didn’t work. Strange, he thought. He tried a few other accounts and none of them worked, either. Now he was alarmed. As a leading climatologist with NASA’s Goddard Institute in Manhattan, he’d been hacked before. He was used to e-mails from people who disapproved of his work, threatening e-mails that detailed the romantic life he was going to have in prison. So he knew what to do: He logged in via the Unix shell command.
A second later, the computer logged him off — and locked him out. Someone was in there, fighting him in real time. Schmidt sent an emergency message to his Web server:
“WE ARE BEING HACKED RIGHT NOW.”
“… it’s always clear that he’d rather have fun. This is his genius, especially in a world given to screaming caps and paranoid detail. It’s another way he’s changing the narrative, showing that one side has a sense of humor.”
Marc of course runs ClimateDepot.com. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but there is no other site like it, and with Marc’s long detailed history in this, working for Senator Inhofe beforehand, there is no one else quite like Marc either. I was lucky enough to see him at work in Bali 2007, and the man is a master of pulling a meaningful message out of mud.
Morano is doing well. Joe Romm is peddling his new book. His old failure is ranked 796,420 on Amazon.
Wonder if Algore will debate Morano in this lifetime? Before we are all covered with se water.
10
I read the whole article (& for free!).
It was an interesting read & well researched. However I thought they made Marc Morano out to be a bit of a muck raker with no integrity. Also there was a distinct warmist slant in parts of the article. For example see the comments on the climategate emails:
“Slowly, most journalists and politicians are coming to the conclusion that the e-mails don’t really change the basic science. The vast majority of them were routine exchanges of data. A few revealed soft spots in the science or doubts that the scientists weren’t expressing in public….”
Doesn’t sound like an accurate assessment of the climategate emails to me.
Maybe someone should send John H Richardson a copy of J P Costella’s upcoming book on the climategate emails.
10
Dont you mean uncle Al’s seaside condo???
If anyone else said seas were rising and would drown cities, and then brought a seaside property would be ripped to shreds by the media. This guys is seen as a god by our complacent media and can do no wrong
10
[…] Marc Morano, Climate Depot and Esquire, […]
10
Pity – it’s fun, but a lot of people will come away thinking that there is no real substance behind the “contrarian” position. That’s it’s just another Swift Boat stunt. Especially U.s. Democrats, who are the climate change crowd. Morano is NOT a mover and shaker of the collapse. The collapse was brought about by the ClimateGaters themselves. I’d rather see an article on the facts.
Oh well – it’s a step in the right direction
10
I tend to agree with Bruce and Tom G but it is a another in what now appears to be a line of articles / interviews / “political” comments showing at the very least a major softening of the warmists view or the start of a major uturn. Take the Jones interview( on the BBC of all places) , the Lovelock interview ( in the Guardian of all places ), Jo’s article yesterday on the great expose of corrution of science etc , Clinton’s dig at Gore , the attempt by the Chairman of the ABC to reign in the biased journalism on the ABC etc.
May there be many more.
10
THIS GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD IS UNBELIEVABLE!
Let me relieve you of your beachfront estate
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/let_me_relieve_you_of_your_beachfront_estate/
Penny Wong signals doom for iconic beaches
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/penny-wong-signals-doom-for-iconic-beaches/story-e6frg6n6-1225831970915
10
PENNY WRONG’S OCEAN SCARES DEBUNKED
Deceived again: how Wong whipped up those “1.1 metre” seas
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/deceived_again_how_wong_whipped_up_those_11_metre_seas/
Deceived again #2: More evidence of how Wong faked her sea scare
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/deceived_again_2_more_evidence_of_how_wong_faked_her_sea_scare/
Deceived again #3: more proof that Wong faked her sea scare
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/n/
10
AL GORE’S BEACH HOUSE
Isn’t it interesting that the head of the Church Of Al Gore owns a beach house!
WHAT ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING AND ALL THOSE RISING OCEANS?
===============================================================
FIGURE EIGHT ISLAND REAL ESTATE
This private, peaceful ocean side haven offers bright blue waters and long stretches of beach, and is home to notables like Al Gore, John Edwards, and others who relish seclusion and natural surroundings. This 1,300 acre 5 mile island does not offer hotels, shopping centers, and tourism. However if bird watching, quiet walks and sunbathing is your strong suit you may find life here appealing. There are only 441 homes, no condos, but it does offer proximity to activity rich Wilmington, NC. Enjoy the myriad architectural styles of neatly cared for properties if you can get onto the island. If this is your style, Figure 8 Island may be your place.
http://www.joepascal.com/figure-eight-island.html
———————————————————————————————–
Figure Eight Island is one of the places in North Carolina that is home to many celebrity houses. Celebrities like John Edwards and former Vice President Al Gore own houses on this island. The island has beautiful views as it is located between the Intracoastal Waterway and the Atlantic Ocean. The entire island only has about 440 houses making it an ideal place for couples and individuals to relax. It is also home to many beautiful exotic animal species. If you are looking for a vacation house, check out the Figure Eight island real estate. Wrightsville beach real estate also offers many bargains and great houses.
http://wilmingtonrealestatehome.com/561/figure-eight-island-real-estate-and-wrightsville-beach-real-estate/
10
I wonder how this will rank on Amazon against Pachauri’s raunchy novel? The problem with writing fiction is that the truth is probably stranger in many cases.
10
Predictable whitewash results from British CRU inquiry:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/30/results-of-the-climategate-paliamentary-inquiry-in-the-uk/#comment-356579
It is no surprise, but a complete travesty.
10
just as richardson’s esquire article leaves out ‘accelerated’ in order to suggest a morano error on sea rise, the very title of the piece “This Man Wants to Convince You Global Warming Is a Hoax” conveniently leaves out “catastrophic anthropogenic” and uses the generic “global warming”.
Richardson writes of morano’s “three years as communications director for Senator James Inhofe, where he made the words Global warming is a hoax world famous”
however, during the morano period, inhofe said:
Sept 25, 2006: Sen. James M. Inhofe(R-Okla): SENATE FLOOR SPEECH
My skeptical views on man-made catastrophic global warming..
http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759
earlier, inhofe said:
July 28, 2003: Senate Floor Statement by U.S. Sen. James M. Inhofe(R-Okla)
With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it.
http://inhofe.senate.gov/pressreleases/climate.htm
richardson: “these particular e-mails had been compiled as part of a bitter Freedom of Information fight launched by contrarians who insist that global warming is a hoax”. in fact, many sceptics think no such thing. what is in dispute is CAGW.
we must take back the language.
10
As a mature age computer novice wanting to access as much information as possible in order to make up my own mind on the climate change debate, I found Marc Morano’s Climate Depot.com to be one of the best of several invaluable sites providing links needed. Contributors to blogs right round the world have made their frustations very clear that they were not getting anywhere near the full story, either from those in the Government-dominated science community or through the Mainstream Media. The ordinary man had no information, no voice and no power. In the case of alleged AGW, unlimited amounts of taxpayer’s money was being poured into efforts to push a particular point of view which, on the face of it, seemed to be demonstrably illogical and would set the world on a financially destructive path for no apparent benefit.
Whatever their motivation or character, we should all be grateful to those who have given us a voice and provided such wonderful forums for the exchange of ideas and knowledge. I appreciate all those who take the time to post, providing even more links to help expand our understanding.
Collectively, we have become a powerful force and a real balancing influence on those who, for their own narrow reasons, seek to keep the general populace “in the dark”.
10
Pat @ 12. “we must take back the language”.
I totally agree. It has been a deliberate ploy of those pushing the AGW barrow, as IPCC reviewer Dr.Vincent Gray spelt out in his article “The Triumph of Doublespeak – How the IPCC Fools Most of the People All of the Time”. Climate change has become a euphemism for man-made global warming; an explanation for anything including all disasters and/or extreme weather events; it’s consequences are nearly always bad and no-one has to provide any proof, as long as someone simply “attributes” such an event to “climate change”.
Whilst the CSIRO, BoM, ABC, MSM or any other relevant organisation continues to use the words “climate change” in this context, they will never regain credibility.
10
OT but this yesterday in the NY Times:
Among Weathercasters, Doubt on Warming
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/science/earth/30warming.html?src=me&ref=general
10
I read in the esquire article that the American Petroleum Institute got Milloy to set up the “Junk Science” website and senator Inhofe got Morano to set up “Climate Depot”. The article seems to give the false impression that all sceptic sites have some political or business affiliation. I have also heard that “Real Climate” has affliations to some green organisation.
I have nothing against individual bloggers political or environmental views. But I would really like to know which blogs out there are being sponsored or are affliated with political parties or organised lobby groups?
10
Thank God for Morano! I’ve heard him debate…he know’s his stuff.
Well, I know for those who keep track of what’s happening in the Global Warming arena should be expecting this. Especially when the wolves critique other wolves not much gets done…you know…same breed always succeeds!
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?2187.last
Anyway, I saw this coming…How about you???
10
Global Warming is NOT a hoax.
AGW hypothesis is a failure.
Media and Environmentalism sensationalism and scaremongering claims are vile and stupid.
I am convinced in all the above.
What else is left?
10
DaveB –my understanding is Realclimate is owned by a PR company ( Fenton (sp?) Communications). It was setup in response to the Hockey Stick debacle to try to counter the skeptic views.
10
So Tony Eastley (ABC) does a soft interview with Lord Martin John Rees who is an astrophysicist:
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2010/s2860819.htm
At the very start of the interview Lord Rees states he has no expertise in climate change, and then goes on to state how there is a clear consensus and government’s must act. Amazing how, within the space of a sentance, all critical thought goes out the window. As President of The Royal Society one would hope for more, but one is sadly disillusioned at how political it has become.
10
Bulldust I’d wager he knows more than most, but is suitably humble in recognition that there are genuine research experts out there. One does not have to be an expert in climate change to be aware of what essentially all those experts are saying.
10
MattB:
Oh I know MattB, but it is ironic, no? Stated another way, “I don’t know anything about a field but here is what I am told…” this goes back to what my Dad always used to joke about. You can start any sentance you like withMany scientists believe…” and who can dispute your statements? Some things have not really changed over the decades, only the sophistication of the scam.
Lord Rees is very different to Monckton, in that Monckton actually understands the science he is presenting. One can debate (as Lambert attempted) whether he interprets some papers correctly, but Monckton understands the underlying science. So when Monckton says (at the start of his speeches) not to take his word for it, but to do the research for yourself, it has a genuine ring to it. Rees on the other hand claims no knowledge of the field and then expects you to believe what he understands to be the consensus.
Chalk and cheese.
10
Bulldust @ 11. Interesting to read the initial reports and comments in the UK press concerning this Inquiry Report. The alarmists are NOT jumping up and down with delight. In the Guardian the MSM promotor of AGW the comments are quite muted/dismissive of the report and the acticles are equally muted.
We’ll see what the next few days bring , but it would seem that most see it as the political twisting that really is.
10
Ross: # 19 and DaveB: # 16
There is one analysis of the money trail behind RealClimate at this blog
10
Bulldust: #22
” Rees on the other hand claims no knowledge of the field and then expects you to believe what he understands to be the consensus.”
Usually always happens with the intellectuals whose proofs are determined by peer review, not on external, objective evidence.
AGW is post normal science, in other words, and thus not science.
And when the majority think like that, and accept it as normal, then all we can do is initially point to the fallacy, and if that fails to step back, shut up, (Additional commenting will cause the group to become distracted and could cause you to find yourself collaterally damaged) and pick up the pieces afterwards.
Our only hope is that the Americans will rebel and skuttle Obamacare and the yet to be morophed cap-n-trade legislation.
This game is no done deal,
10
Bulldust #21
I prefer the Richard North version : AGW is a hypothesis that cannot be falsified is supported by falsified evidence.
10
What I find appalling about the report is how they go from the meat of the reading saying this:
To a watered-down conclusion reading as follows:
Yeah I am sure the climate science community will drop everything and act on a “suggestion” that they become more transparent.
Like the IPCC reports, most people will not read the meat of this report and assume the weak-arsed statements in the conclusions are representative of the rest of the body.
10
Let’s be clear, this issue is not going to disappear quickly; far too much money has been vested in AGW programmes. But one must believe that in due course the truth will out and the fraud and deception will be revealed in all its forms. I think it will be three to four years before the politicians finally realise that they have been hoodwinked by a group of unscrupulous scientists and lobbyists bent on a personal and financially rewarding agenda. Marc Moreano is an excellent catalyst for the uncovering of the truth in spite of his somewhat theatrical approach. Good luck to him.
10
Rereke @ 24 .Thanks for the link. I see that self appointed “editor”/ manipulator of all things to do with Climate Change on Wikipedia –William Connolley is on the list of the original team at Realclimate. Should we be surprised ?
10
Bulldust #11 – the leniency of the British pols went far beyond anything I would have predicted.
Possibly they saw too much of the same venality they’ve been caught at with their imaginitive claims and said “Well, who are we to be critical?”
10
Gregoryno6 — I see the Chairman of the committee ( Paul Willis )quoted in the UK MSM saying ” Jones was acting in line with common practice in the climate science community ” when not sharing data. Later he says ” he (Jones) was certainly not co-operative with those seeking to get data but that is true of all climate scientists”
So Willis is indirectly slamming all the climate science community or his lame excuse says something about his and the committee’s level of thinking in which case you’d have to question the whole report. But the reality is this is another indication of how political the whole affair is. ( the science got left behind years ago )
10
One of the best descriptions I’ve come across of the UK parliament, courtesy of James Delingploe which I thought I’d share with you:
” the most corrupt, money-grubbing taxpayer-funded roach pit of the lot – our Houses of Parliament”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100032293/lying-cheating-defrauding-taxpayer-are-all-ok-announces-panel-of-mps/
10
It’s clear and simple. Global warming hysteria (as peddled by AGW alarmists) is a hoax, even if global warming per se is true. It’s time everyone understood the difference and the truth.
10
Ross @31 – Something else I didn’t realise until I saw this at Andrew Bolt’s: the report was released after only ONE DAY of testimony.
10
All they do is expose themselves as con artists by their appalling behaviour. All they do is incriminate themselves and now that incrimination is recording in the annals of history!
10
Wikipedia continue to wikisensor!
http://pediawatch.wordpress.com/2010/03/08/the-anatomy-of-dishonest-editing/
10
Brisbane Courier Mail is reporting that East Anglia e-mail leakage has not damaged peer review process or discredited AGW hypothesis ..according to report of Parliamentary Review process…true,false or April Fool’s joke?
10
“This is the beginning of many full-length articles that will come as the House of Mann-Made Global Warming collapses……”
I wish I was so hopeful. I just see them controlling the public by sheer repetition.
10
Louis at 25:
Louis I am in full agreement, Standing at Ready. The challenge is formidable but I have observed a tremendous backlash amongst the general population.
10
Tony @ #28
But that is the whole problem with post-modernism, they don’t see what they are doing as fradulent. This is why the opposition of the sceptics is so trenchant and visceral.
We are not oppposing a science per se but a political movement using science. Post-normal science cannot be refuted – it’s actually technically sophisticated politics in play.
10
Mark D @ 39
Unfortunately we in Oz are too far down the socialist path to change things, especially when the idiots in the Liberal Party we have here, our “conservatives”, intend implementing their own emissions trading scheme.
This fact makes it a battle between us, and the state, not a particular political party.
Most Australians want a welfare state and the way the children are being brainwashed into post-modernism means they accept all this quasi-totalitarian policy as “normal”.
But, surprise of surprises, some in the MSM are starting to question sensitive issues like Native Title – journalist Paul Murray fired a veritable broadside at it two days ago in the West Australian Newspaper. (Native Title was implemented here to specifically diminish private property rights, and part of the long term strategy of the Fabians).
And I am not sure that most of our academics are all that intelligent either, given the reaction to the Plimer debate last year – ANU academics thought AGW was widely accepted as true. THe Australian Geological Society also supports it, but the society I am with, AIG, is agnostic on it.
And I’m not a climate sceptic either – I am, like Willis Eschenbach, a climate heretic – they basically have the physics wrong.
This whole nonsense will stop once the academics in NASA etc start taking on board the latest, ever increasing, space data their satellites are collecting – Once they make the light-bulb connection of electricity and the plasma connection, then weather, which is the behaviour of the earth systems interface with the plasma of space, will become easier to explain.
It might happen in my lifetime.
10
Does anyone know what is going on behind so-called “science-blogs”. Looking at the various science-blogs, we see that it appears to be part of a plan to grasp hold of science, and monopolize it as if science was an extension of a hard-left approach to the liberal arts.
There was this fellow called Coby Beck, not even with formal qualifications. And somehow scienceblogs got onto him. Before that well we know our own malign michelin man Tim Lambert. But then you had the worst propagandist of all. So-called Stoat. Endless trasher and manipulater of Wiki. Brainless know-nothing mathematician and computer guy. Now his real name comes back to me. William Connelly.
And thats the pattern. Its always the same techniques of swarming and abuse too. PZ Myers is another one. All scienceblogs uniformally despotic and hard-leftist. Actually PZ was less despotic. He just manipulates his bully-boys to do his head-kicking for him. He actually accused me of being an anti-vaxer.
All these science-blogs with moronic hard-leftists. That cannot be a coincidence. There is real intention there. One wonders if any of their financial backing is government-sourced in some way.
10
Bruce @ 32:
Ahh you make me pine for ole Paul Keating and his glorious off-the-cuff sledges. He referred to the senate as unrepresentative swill as in:
From: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Paul_Keating
10
Graeme, Myers’ blog is top notch, and I’m afraid you were made to look like a fool. You’ve been sounding good on the blogs recently, but I’m afraid you got slaughtered. You need a different approach on those blogs as, and no offence intended, you do open yourself up to sounding like an absolute 1st class whacko:) You’re not going to do any good for your cause in that way.
10
Graeme Bird:
You see hard right loonies too… some are carrying on like universal health in the US is armaggedon itself. They need to get a grip.
Fact is, you get more attention on most blogs by being extreme in your opinions… the rational, fact-based approach rarely gets much attention.
10
Marc Morano does not exactly sound like somebody you want to be pushing the cause of AGW being a crock. He brings too much zealot extremist baggage.
10
Graeme, first off you have received the highest praise from Mattb: “You’ve been sounding good on the blogs recently” Since Mattb was my first exposure to you (with his slanderous snippets from who knows where) I still think he is wrong and you are right.
I’d say you have found a safe home here and that is a good thing.
Your entire post at 42 is heard by me and is well thought.
10
Louis, I hope you are wrong about AU being too far gone. Your homeland has proven to been worthy and deserving of recognition in regards to fighting the wrongs of the world. I have confidence that you and your countrymen will be counted upon when needed.
You make an accurate point about a welfare state but I know (and you know) that is not sustainable. I hope to prevent the same from happening here (in the US)
10
Mark D – by “slanderous snippets” I can only assume you mean “direct quotes”?
As for me well I enjoy Graeme’s colourful contributions.
10
Esquire doesn’t seem to be in agreement with Marc Morano or supporting him, just finding him an interesting subject to document. I guess that’s fair in journalism but I’d like to find just one major publication that is actually skeptical about global warming. Surely there must be one somewhere. Or have I lost my mind?
10
Mattb Another first?
10
Re post # 46,
Gee Wally,has it ever occurred to you that those who push the silly AGW hypothesis so hard are the ones who give Marc the opportunity to undress them? Since it is those same people who are pushing pseudoscience,based on a lot of unverified FUTURE projected climate models to year 2100.
How can anyone call it sober science research when it can not be shown to be valid for many many decades into the FUTURE?
It is considered by AGW believers that it is valid to make projections and call it data.
ROFLMAO!
Marc is a guy with a lot of baggage huh?
What about Senator Boxer (who is unfortunately replaced Senator Inhofe) who is profoundly ignorant,but that does not matter since she is operating with a lot of political ideology based on juvenile beliefs of some doomsday of the future.The same woman who took over from Senator Inhofe whom Marc used to work for.Producing an award winning website under Senator Inhofe’s banner and in the process had the gall to list many published science papers,and show that the mythical “consensus” did not exist anyway.To show that there were indeed no such thing as “settled science” and that it commonly leftist twits who favor misleading and lying to the public about climate change (or was it global warming?)
For myself I have long seen (20 years) what a crock the whole thing is,and I never needed Marc to tell me that.I did not even need a science paper to tell me that.It is so freaking obvious!
It was from DAY ONE built on a marriage of politics and money.The IPCC was BIASED from day one when it was charged to find that human influence on the climate.To the make policy based on the IPCC repots.
Talk about CONFLICT OF INTEREST!
One hand of the BEAST is telling the other hand what it desires/wants to believe.
Yet you whined about Marc:
How come you are not upset about the IPCC reports built on leveraged bias and shoddy selection of papers,that claims that Homo Sapiens are the main cause of GW because of the less than 3% of the total yearly CO2 emissions we are blamed for,will somehow overwhelm nature (that never happened in 600 million years) and send us into a heat wave we would never recover from.
10
Mattb @49
I do not have first hand understanding of this. I trust that Graeme has the ability to properly defend the allegation.
As for me at the moment i could buy a pint for both of you AND drink it in your company. If you both bought a round on top of that…..Well Cheers!
10
Mark D have you read the Pharyngula threads?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/03/the_graeme_bird_memorial_threa.php
May I suggest post #96 – I’d quote here but I don;t think Jo like profanity:)
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/03/these_guys_are_dangerous_nuts.php
These are hot off the press. But as I say I do sincerely enjoy Graeme’s writings, and I don’t enjoy it when he is cornered as you can see it all fall apart.
10
Sunsetommy. Give the Wally a break!
…..
……
……
naw just kidding 🙂
10
MattB I offered beer and you keep going?!?!?!?
10
I didn’t realise we were arguing Mark D? I was just giving you some first hand understanding. There is no-one I’ve met on the climate blogosphere that I would not similarly be happy to enjoy a beer with.
10
Re # 54,
MattB,
when an associate Professor (PZ Myers)feels the need to make a blog post for the purpose of making a personal attack on someone,it is plain that he is a bigoted man,and why I very quickly stopped commenting there 2 years ago (after about 2 days or so).
His blog is not worth visiting,because plainly he is a nasty little man.
10
Sorry Matt, I am not argueing (I didn’t look at your links) not because I can’t take it but because there is beer in front of me. Yes I can be bought but it takes better beer than Fosters….
Damn, I am seriously in tears over that…….
Is it possible that the world could be saved ….over a beer?
10
“Graeme, Myers’ blog is top notch…”
No thats not right. Myers himself is incredibly dishonest. He can fake it as being reasonably bright, but actually he’s a lock-step dummy. I was expecting better because he gave a pretty good speech at that atheists conference. But he’s a liar. And the people he attracts are just blockheads. Incredibly stupid. Myers blog is also powerfully boring. Since its not about science. Its really an alterenative church. Occasionally an heretic wanders in and that is what provides the entertainment for these incredibly stupid people. If anything these people are yet more stupid then those one encounters on Deltoid.
“You see hard right loonies too… some are carrying on like universal health in the US is armaggedon itself. They need to get a grip.”
Thats not right actually Bulldust. But I”m not saying you are being irrational or illogical here. I can see how someone would jump to that conclusion. When you get down to the detail of it this is no ordinary national health care. Rather its an attempt to control the entire population, by systematically robbing the elderly, of health care funding and options.
Its quite literally the opposite of what I was saying on an earlier thread about how you would handle health care. You see the idea is to get everyone, but the elderly and the terminally sick, to be paying as much of their health costs straight out of savings.
This is not what he’s done. He’s done the opposite. He’s funding all the youth stuff through public money, laughably calling it insurance, and whilst doing this he’s going to (in the first instance) sacrifice the elderly. Of course then a sort of black-market-come-patronage- system will have to be set up, because all these old guys won’t want to die for no reason.
In other words the plan is to sacrifice the elderly poor like Logans Run. Truly a eugenicist policy for the elderly poor, and an attempt to co-opt the elderly rich. So yeah its Armageddon. The right-wingers are right and you are wrong.
Hence the health care bill, has to be seen as a more sophisticated attempt to take over in the US as Hugo Chavez took over down south.
Whether this takeover attempt is unrealistic or not, is somewhat besides the point. If these guys keep trying this sort of thing on at every turn, the tendency is to wear their opponents down. And to marginalize their opponents as well. People get sick of folks like me pointing out what a con-artist Soetoro is.
The last climate conference involved a truly Quixotic attempt to set up a world government. Now whether we think this was a realistic prospect or not, this was indeed attempted. Thats the main thing to understand here. These things are indeed attempted and no-one gets punished. People ought to have been sacked by the bakers dozen just over the attempt, completely independent of our view of their likelihood of success. Because if we don’t sack these people, they’ll just wear down the opposition. Its not too late now. And a decent Australian government would try and use diplomatic pressure to effect a heavy price just for this attempt.
The oppositions to these quixotic leftist usurpation attempts are having to catch a relentless volley of balls these people are throwing at them. Eventually it becomes clear that its not possible to catch all the balls, and you have to walk over and knock the ball-thrower over so he won’t throw the balls no more.
Or take it if I’m blowing bubbles and my dog is popping them all before they hit the ground. If every bubble that actually made it to the ground was going to kill someone, and my dog doesn’t want that to happen, eventually he’s got to knock over the bubble-blower. Even if a few bubbles hit the ground as he is doing so.
The idea is to get the mass-sackings in early. Then we don’t have the civil war, or other nastiness, later on.
10
Folks,
Have a read of Marc’s latest posts – James Hansen seems to be now supporting the idea that industrialisation has to be stopped totally.
Like I keep saying, his agenda is based on his PHd – Venus and the runaway greenhouse effect – and if you can’t null that lunatic hypothesis, then AGW will be very hard to stop. Almost as lunatic as Peak oil, come to think about it.
10
“….when an associate Professor (PZ Myers)feels the need to make a blog post for the purpose of making a personal attack on someone,it is plain that he is a bigoted man,and why I very quickly stopped commenting there 2 years ago (after about 2 days or so)…..”
See it wasn’t just me. Since the first two threads I went on I attempted to show more discipline then usual and not retaliate when people swore at me. When he set up the ritual abuse thread I could see that my time was almost up so I started returning fire. He also lied about me. Called me an anti-vaxer. I had people storming my blog incensed that I would want to bring back the polio and the small-pox. Or thats what it seemed anyway. I would try to tell them that I was in favour of vaccinations. That I got vaccinated against influenza every year. That I got the cow pox myself and learned the story of Edward Jenner as a very young child. But it took a long time to convince them.
He alleged that I was anti-evolutionist. But those two weren’t so bad. It was half-truthz branding that really was damaging. Because in the case of all these half-truthz, it would take me about half and hour to explain where I’m coming from, even to people whose thinking I trust. So I’m very unhappy about him. And I intend to over time make him pay a pretty large price for his dishonesty. And for his crowd manipulation.
I’d NEVER let people get swarmed like that on my site. Never. Its just rude. Its one thing for someone to get insulted. But this swarming is really rotten stuff. I’ve never been able to watch it happen and not try and stop it. The right-wingers on Catallaxy were doing this to a hard-leftist woman that used to visit there, and I couldn’t stand that either. I’d punch fatty-Myers in the guts on sight if I saw him. No doubt about that at all.
10
“Almost as lunatic as Peak oil, come to think about it……”
Yeah but Louis there is a sensible, limited version of peak oil isn’t there? One that implies we better get cracking with the substitute hydrocarbons, the nuclear and the deep-sea oil?
10
Graeme, How do you type so much?
again I have to agree (and I live here)
10
John Watt @ 37:
The inquiry which just reported in the UK House of Commons was not established to examine the science, and therefore any report which is painting this as vindication of the science is disingenuous in the extreme. To wit, part of one of the main conclusions read:
As for the lack of transparency by the CRU mob, I quoted a couple relevant sections above in 27. What went from being quite scathing in the body of the report became a slight breath of a suggestion by the end. In fact they were almost apologetic with respect to Jones’ behaviour, laying more of the blame for FOI evasion at the feet to the University (UEA).
The latter is quite ridiculous, of course, because it is quite obvious from Jones’ emails that it was he, and not the UEA, that was trying to avoid answering FOI requests. Several of Jones’ emails state this directly or indirectly. In that respect the committee failed completely in it’s assessment of the situation.
Political committee results in politically-correct finding… quelle surprise!
10
“Graeme, How do you type so much?”
I don’t know how I type so much. I wish someone would give me a job doing it. Although one likes to think of it as “writing” not just “typing.”
“Capote is probably best known for his “true-crime” nonfiction novel In Cold Blood, his creation of Holly Golightly in the short tale of Breakfast at Tiffany’s, and his dismissal of Jack Kerouac’s work with the famous remark: “It isn’t writing at all. It’s typing.”
10
sunsettommy @52.
Don’t get me wrong, and say I whine. Thats childish.
I’m far from a believer in AGW and have commented here a number of times. For various reasons unrelated to here (happy to go into privately) I’ve had to have a change of name. Be all that as it may.
My point is that using Marc Marano to CREDIBLY try and demolish AGW is a bit like trying to CREDIBLY wheel out one of the Spanish inquisitors to prove that the church really used to be tolerant and nice: It doesn’t pass the smell test.
I’m more than happy to read many blogs that take a considered, tolerant, honest view of what’s going on. I’m not so happy with the idea of the attach on the idiocy being let by someone who gives all the appearance of a zealot (or, perhaps angry Rottwieler).
Now, perhaps whatever may be will be, however, I feel uncomfortable having this chap championing the cause. I know the cause has to demolish many lies and much foolishness. I’m reminded of the adage, though, that two wrongs dont make a right.
(I’m also aware in Australian that any number of Wongs don’t make a right, either. Thats a bad joke, by the way.)
10
Louis Hissink @61:
It would appear Mr Hansen has held such view for some time. This should not come as news!
10
Why should not be surprised that Graeme brings in a sly dig at my favourite author.
10
Wally – you don’t need to go as far as the spanish inquisition – using Marc Morano to discredit AGW is akin to rolling out Christopher Monckton to do the same. And no skeptic would be that stupid… uh oh – they did WHAT? sheesh.
10
Oh crap I opened your first Link (re Graeme) PZ Meyer
Matt If we stick to beer we might get along.
If we go to politics I’ll likely stand by Graeme (thanks for linking me with that leftist nut PZ) in my home state where I can reach him….
Graeme we need to talk.
10
Wally
Marc Morano’s site is basically a clearing house for relevant news items which most of us could never compile individually.
As for Hansen’s views, well yes, it is old news, but that it gets newsworthy again is important, because it might well be the case that the Climate Worshippers are becoming even more strident and irrational in the reaction to the continued demolition of their game.
10
BTW Clive Hamilton @ ABC re Climategate and the UK inquiry:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2862717.htm
Fawning doesn’t even begin to describe it… another AGW fanboi that just doesn’t get it (the science), or is simply disingenuous.
10
Meanwhile I have been dabbling at the John McLean response to Lewandowsky at the ABC:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2861936.htm
Join in… the usual AGW types are there.
10
Mark are you from Minnesota? Thats where PZ is from yeah? I just cannot see how a man who comes from somewhere that damn cold would be going with the stupid-person line on this matter. Incredible.
10
@ DaveB:
March 31st, 2010 at 11:51 am
Dave, the bottom line on RealClimate.org, is that it is ultimately funded by George Soro’s group. If you trace all the way through the chain of ownership from the domain name (Environmental Media Services – EMS) and follow the chain to the end, you end up at George Soro’s.
In the case of RealClimate.org, there is NO DOUBT that is it owned and operated by environmental activists, despite the lies to the contrary by Gavin Schmidt and his cohorts. Again, there is NO DOUBT, trace it yourself and do the research (I have).
10
Also, I would like people here to be aware of something, as you are going to begin hearing about it with the upcoming Cap’N Tax scheme Obama will be, once again, trying to cram through Congress.
President Obama announces today that he will “allow” oil drilling off the coast of Virginia. AFP Vice President for Policy Phil Kerpen issued the following statement:
10
Squidly @ #77
Sort of good news, but we are all sitting on enormous oil reserves, both in Australia and the US. I accept Tommy Gold’s Deep Hot Biosphere hypothesis, as well as the Russian-Ukrainian theory of abiotic oil. Oil fields and black coal deposits are spatially correlated, find one, coal seams, drill deeper, oil.
Incidentally I get the weekly Human Events mailed to me from the US. One just arrived with quote of the week
Unbelievable! Like, give me the password to your banking account so you can find out how much I am going to steal from you.
10
MattB @ 21
Most of us are “aware of what all those experts are saying” and basically it comes down to two points as set out in “The Summary For Policymakers” from the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. quote:
It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years……….
The observed patterns of warming, including greater warming over land than the ocean, and their changes over time, are only simulated by models that include anthropogenic forcing. unquote
As I see it, this is the “settled science” we are asked to believe and on which it is said, there is “overwhelming consensus”.
The first problem for some of these same “experts” is, that during those 50 years in the early 1970’s, they were warning of an impending Ice Age due, some said, to increasing levels of CO2.
The whole premise of AGW is that the “experts” believe that what they say is currently observed global warming is not only unprecedented, but cannot be explained by natural variability.
This view ignores, or to a large extent discounts, the climate history of the world documented by many scientists and observers over the centuries. There have even been unsuccessful attempts to rewrite “inconvenient” climate history. The “experts” rely instead on a series of computer-generated simulation models offering various “what if” scenarios.
It presupposes that these “experts” have not only analysed and accounted for the many hundreds of known natural factors affecting climate, but have also examined all statistical combinations of the possible interdependence of some or all of them. Not only that impossible task, but further, have incorporated all that information into computer modelling which has evidently failed to “explain” their observed global warming.
If this does not stretch believability to the limit for any person with an enquiring mind, the final “science” we are asked to accept is that most of the “observed warming” is caused by statistically fractional greenhouse gases, particularly by the approximate 3 percent of total atmospheric CO2, a gas vital to all plant and animal life, contributed by the activities of humans.
This is the position as I see it after many months of looking at all sides of the debate. However, I’m always open to change if anyone can convince me with logical argument that the position is not as set out above. Name-calling, denigration or abuse of any kind is not logical argument. Neither are such statements as “the science is settled” or “there is overwhelming consensus” or “thousands of scientists agree” etc.,etc. Even a battle of web-links doesn’t serve much purpose as most of us have been there, done that.
What I do believe is that climate has changed, either cooling or warming, due to natural variability and natural events ever since the world began and will continue to do so no matter what Man does or tries to do to stop it.
MattB, you are obviously very intelligent and a good debater with an underlying sense of humour I rather like, but what do you actually believe and why? Cheers
10
Keith H:
I share all the views you express at #79. For example, you say:
Yes, such a proposition needs good evidence if it is to be accepted as a reason for taking actions that would inevitably kill a substantial proportion of the World’s human population(as e.g. “decarbonising” energy supplies would).
The proposition needs good evidence because – as you say – it is very improbable. The way I usually explain this is to say the following.
The AGW hypothesis is that a trace atmospheric gas which is the very stuff of life itself may – if it increases its atmospheric concentration – become Shiva, the Destroyer of Worlds. In fact, it’s worse than that. Nature emits 34 molecules of CO2 for every molecule of CO2 emitted by human activities so AGW suggests that a minute increase to the annual emission of this essential trace gas could cause Armageddon. Furthermore, in the geological past and during ice ages the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been more than ten times greater than it is now.
So, if you had never heard of AGW and somebody came in off the street and tried to sell it to you would you say,
“Oh dear! Of course, we must change the economic activity of the entire world”?
But, to date, there is no evidence of any kind for discernible AGW: none, zilch, not any.
Richard
10
Keith H @ #79
Scientific facts are not determined by logical argument.
They are determined by experiment.
Those which cannot have to be dismissed as pseudoscience.
10
Louis @72,
I think that’s exactly what’s happening. We’re raining on their parade and they don’t like it. I have started to worry that there will be violence against prominent skeptics. They’re only one step away from take out the people directly with their destroy everything else rhetoric.
10
Roy Hogue @ #82
What concerns me is the widespread sceptical belief that it’s about science – it isn’t. As EU Referendum points out,
Like it or not, violence will be slowly ratched up – and some prominent sceptics may well physically suffer; Chris Monckton was roughed up at Copenhagen, remember.
No, we are repeating Europe of the 1930’s – same players, same goals, but just a new generation of them.
10
Richard S Courtney @ 80
This very ordinary man (me) thanks you for your comments on my post.
Louis Hissink @ 81
I agree scientific fact has to be determined by experiment, both verifiable and repeatable.
Your later comment at 83 – “What concerns me is the widespread sceptical belief that it’s about science – it isn’t” – I believe shows we are on the same wavelength.
It’s of great concern to me that the debate on blogs all over the world seems to be getting us nowhere. I am trying to reduce it to what I see as the basic argument.
Is climate change, either cooling or warming, caused by natural variability and events as has been the case since the world began or is it now human-induced?
To me, and I would wager many others, there is no logic at all in producing Reports containing so many guesses based on “likely”, “very likely” and “what if” climate model produced scenarios and claiming that as evidence of AGW. Put simply, the IPCC scientists are saying they believe there is global warming, they don’t know the cause, so it must be CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
Motivated as they are by so many different agendas, be it Green, Vegan, hatred of fossil fuels, financial, such as making money out of carbon trading, power, world governance etc.,etc., I don’t think that the majority of pro-AGW individuals have even thought about what it is they are actually being asked to believe. My post was an effort to point that out.
A quote I saw recently seems appropriate to describe their position. “Science is belief in the ignorance of scientists”.
(With no disrespect to the majority of scientists)!
10
Keith H: #84
The blogs are getting nowhere because most don’t realise what’s actually going on – though the while the pro-AGW types are easily gulled by sophisticated rhetoric and hence the “useful idiots” used by the states/political class to further their power and funding, the sceptics have been equally gulled into thinking it’s the science that is the issue; it isn’t, and never was.
The people running this thing, basically those who believe in state control of human activity, for whatever reason, told me to my face some years back the climate change issue wasn’t the science but the means to force us into a more sustainable lifestyle; and of course the wealth redistribution policy which was never hidden from the start.
You are right that the pro-AGW have not even thought about it, and that’s probably because they actually can’t, having been brainwashed by the post-modernist education system that has been in place in the Western countries for the last 30 years.
Basically the barbarians are back in control again, what with their post-normal science, intolerance of any view that is not PC, and there is not much we can do about it, they have the numbers and control the governments, including the bureacracies, and of course the UN.
There is indeed no scientific logic behind the various IPCC reports, but there is very obvious political logic behind it, and this is what the game is. They suffered a setback at Copenhagen, and will in Mexico come up with a solution, though this time worded a little more ambiguously to gull us into a false sense of security.
This mob are relentness in implementing their agenda, and have been slowly doing it for 100 years. They are close to achieving it except that the anarchy that is the internet, seems to have caught them by surprise.
This whole issue is about funding a large parasite class by guaranteeing funds from the taxpayers. You need to go back decades and track what Maurice Strong was doing setting up the various environemental groups, NGO’s etc, by passing the old nation state system with a network of fellow travellers all funded by backdoor means from unwitting nation states.
10
Graeme Bird:@75
Well in the interest of internet anonymity, lets just say I’m very familiar with Minnesota. Land of 10,000 lakes and even more taxes. I even know some young adults attending PZ’s school.
Yes those of us living in the cold will be paying a disproportionate amount towards Co2 penance. I think that is part of the plan too. They want to herd us to more population dense areas (south) and turn everything else into a wilderness.
10
Translation from a good article in der Speigel on the Climategate history:
http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=25197#top
10
Louis @83,
Yes it’s all political. But we are making some difference and need to keep this before the public any way we can. The solution will come, if it comes at all, from an angry citizenry.
Here in the states reliable polling now shows that the number of people who doubt global warming is increasing and statistically at least, has reached 50%.
Keep up the fight.
10
Roy @88
The just released Der Spiegal articles are fairly hard hitting as well, so it’s likely the MSM might have to start taking notice but I doubt it – most are liberals and regard us as incomprehending red-necks.
I also see Obama might try to achieve his goal by using the existing powers of the EPA to regulate CO2, another post on Morano’s climatedepot site.
This could lead to civil insurrection if that arrogant attitude to the people continues. Hope not but history has proven otherwise.
10
Louis @88,
Obama certainly is going full speed ahead through the EPA but court challenges to their science are in the works from what I’ve read. I don’t know what will happen but insurrection is not out of the question if the pain gets too bad. I dread the very possibility but I fear it may just be possible. We already have too many nut cases running around as it is.
10
[…] Marc Morano, Climate Depot and Esquire, Dishonesty, lack of transparency and spin, spin, spin, Data collection, sampling error and spurious meanings, The funding plunging continues with spurious and questionable scientific practices, Medieval warming period – part 1, How DO we know?, […]
10
I don’t consider Marc Morano a seeker of truth, more of a closed-minded advocate. That said, he’s probably right, for the most part.
His site is a great source of interesting links.
10
“Marc Morano broke the Swift Boat story” – not something an honest citizen would want on their CV.
10
Ginckgo, why should breaking the swiftboat story be bad? Kerry was a liar. There are too many eye-witnesses to his nonsense during his few weeks in Vietnam to believe anything other than his heroism was a hoax (he even brought a movie camera with him and had friends re-enact his supposed rescue scenes; clearly he was scheming to deceive viewers back home). I also noted with interest that he voted for the big Wall Street bank bailouts, but just happened to be heavily invested in at least one of the same firms. Exposing a crook and charlatan is not something to be ashamed of.
You obviously know nothing of the anti-AGW evidence that is piling up by the truckload. Who cares if a million scientists believe something if it isn’t so? When I was child, ALL scientists believed that intelligence was indicated by the number of fissures in ones brain. They were ALL wrong. In fact, the history of science is one of majority error. Only the renegades ever come up with new information, which invariably disproves the old, and the good old boys club–mainstream science–is always the last to correct course. When “peer-reviewed” articles mean articles “reviewed” by ones closest friends and associates, something is definitely wrong.
Keep in mind that not one piece of empirical evidence of man-made global warming has been produced. Suppositions, computer projections, and guesstimations are not empirical evidence. The computer geek AGW scientists claim the sea levels are rising and polar bears are drowning, but seasoned eyewitness researchers and sea-level experts claim quite the opposite. Climate scientists do not bother to go the the seaside and measure. That would be empirical research, of which none of them apparently has any concept.
Read the CRU files, including the e-mails and the fudge-factor computer programming file, then come back and tell us we’re crazy. The programmer hired by the CRU to replicate its computer program–the program responsible for “correcting” world temperatures–himself admitted it was all a crock. His disparaging comments are in the file. Take away the grant money, the free trips to conferences in exotic locals, the 5-star hotels, the fabulous dinners, limos, and booze, the rock-star adoration and the rest, and most so called climate scientists would evaporate back into the nerdom from which they emerged.
10
Graeme Bird @42: Have you ever considered that all the Scienceblogs posters are behind AGW because it’s good science?
10
Re post # 93,
What Marc did was accurate reporting.There are simply too many people who have attested that Kerry was not being truthful and was actually caught red handed a few times for gross lying.
By the way when will John Kerry release his military records as he has been requested to do for years now.George Bush released it when he was Governor.
LOL.
10
Ginckgo,
I noticed that you did not make ANY counterpoints to his claims he made in that post.
Do you have any for your next post?
10
Bulldust:
At #66 you say of the UK Select Committee report on Climategate:
With respect, I beg to differ. Indeed, I think the problem is much more serious than that.
Please see my essay at
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/comments_uk_p.pdf
Richard
10
[snip …. Harry, my sense of humour is doing just fine, but I published the first link to the image ages ago, and you keep repeating the same post on different threads under different names … I’m flattered, but no more. OK? — JN]
10