Home > Uncategorized > Copenhagen


We’re devoting a couple segments this week to the United Nations summit meeting on climate change in Copenhagen. Last night, Jeff Bliss laid out the basic facts behind the so-called “Climategate” story, hacked emails that suggest that scientists who believe that severe climate change has happened have ben intentionally manipulating data to support their cause. Tonight, we bring Dr. Ray Weymann back into the studio to respond to those accusations and to argue why Copenhagen is so important.

Regardless of how you feel about Climategate, it is an interesting case study in politics and media. As Jeff pointed out last night, liberals who were quick to embrace Daniel Ellsberg as a national hero for leaking the Pentagon Papers want the Climategate hacker to be prosecuted. The liberals are trying to downplay the significance of the emails and attack the source. Conservatives, meanwhile, are trying to use this information (who can deny the timing??) to derail Copenhagen and water down and potential impact.

What do you think about Climategate? Feel free to weigh in. Are scientists deliberately trying to manipulate data to influence policy? Apparently some countries have already concluded that they are and have backed off stricter environmental controls.

  1. December 8, 2009 at 6:19 pm

    My biggest support for environmental reform comes not from change (obvious as it may be in some parts of the world) but to the fact that the recommended changes often conserve natural resources. The less hydrocarbons we use and the more we conserve our forests and use sustainable and renewable products the better off we will be, in the long run.

  2. December 8, 2009 at 6:40 pm

    "Climategate" is another attempt by the right to confuse the issue, not offer anything of a substantial argument to a debate on global climate change. IF you attempt to read all of these emails that have been released, can you really understand all that is being said if you are not a climate scientist? To say that this discovery of the emails means that there in no such thing as global climate change is childish at best, and is at worst an attempt to undermine all science for a profit motive, which is pretty evil when you think about it. How is it even possible that millions of scientist all over the world have colluded to put forth global climate change as some sort of hoax? What do these scientist gain by such a purported hoax? If a scientist really was being motivated by a desire for money, wouldn't it be much easier for one or several of them to claim to be a scientist that global climate change does not exist? The argument that global climate change is not happening, that man made causes such as Co2 emissions have no effect on our atmosphere does not appear to based on science. I will be curious to hear Dr. Weymann's segment on Dave's show today, to hear an actual scientist discuss this issue. And to anyone who is foolish enough to say that they don't "believe" in global climate change, I say that science is not about "belief", but is about facts, assumptions based on facts and logical extensions of those facts.

  3. December 9, 2009 at 6:08 pm

    Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable. That is what algore is. He knows these emails are evidence of tampering by these so-called scientist. It is ironic that the NYT was eager to publish Sarah Palin's hacked emails too, but will not release these emails because it is contrary to their socialistic tendencies. < a href=”http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_gore_falsifies_the_record”>algore the LIARPlease, don't fall for this power play by Government. Only the people like algore and Pelosi will be allowed to travel when they choose.

  4. December 9, 2009 at 11:59 pm

    High on the list of causes of this historic failure of political will is a cleverly orchestrated, well-funded campaign of junk science designed to mislead the public into believing there is a split in scientific opinion about climate change. For years, this misinformation campaign has been largely funded by the oil and coal industries, working under the guise of fake grassroots groups ("astroturf groups") and industry front groups with names designed to suggest that they represent the public interest."Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming," by James Hoggan with Richard Littlemore, is a brilliant exposé of this war on science. Hoggan is the co-founder of DeSmogBlog.com and Littlemore is the web site's lead writer. Their new book is a chilling description of greed, conflicts of interest and the oil and coal industries' shenanigans; it picks up where other books, like Ross Gelbspan's "The Heat Is On" (1997) and "Boiling Point" (2004), left off."Climate Cover-Up" describes how University of California Professor Naomi Oreskes exhaustively researched peer-reviewed scientific journal articles on climate change published between 1993 and 2003 and found that of 928 articles, not a single one took exception with the fact that humans' releases of greenhouse gases were causing climate change. Yet between 1998 and 2002, fifty-three percent of climate change stories in four leading US newspapers – The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times – "quoted a scientist on 'one side' of the issue and a spokesperson on the other," according to an analysis by brothers Jules and Max Boykoff.Rather than challenging the scientific consensus on climate change with a head-on attack through published articles subject to peer review, the climate deniers began a campaign of "science-by-petition," often involving signatures by fake climate experts (including academics and scientists who tried to portray themselves as experts outside their area of expertise) or fake signatures by real climate experts whose names had been added without their consent."Climate Cover-Up" tells dramatic stories about how phony climate experts and "junk scientists" succeed, helped by: (1) the fact that the "scientific debate" about climate change is now occurring largely outside of scientific institutions; (2) the "echo chamber" created by the "reverberating network of think tanks, blogs, and ideologically sympathetic mainstream media outlets that distribute and circulate contrarian information"; and (3) the talents and skills of those who lead the public relations push or ride the climate deniers' lecture circuit."Climate Cover-Up" exposes major climate-change denier phonies like Marc Morano, who led the Swift Boat campaign against presidential candidate John Kerry.Hoggan and Littlemore aptly call the climate change cover-up "an intergenerational crime." Forget complaining about wimpy leadership at Copenhagen. In a variant of Gandhi's message, "We must become the change we want to see," Hoggan and Littlemore remind us, "You're the person who is going to have to start taking responsibility, not just for your own actions, but for the position of your government and the integrity of the public climate change conversation."Climate change is getting worse much faster than predicted just a few years ago. Melting permafrost is releasing methane, a greenhouse gas 20 to 60 times more potent than carbon dioxide, creating a dangerous feedback loop. Our oceans have served as a vast carbon sink, but are now saturated with carbon and may be losing their ability to soak up more greenhouse gases. The carbon that they have already absorbed has harmed coral and other marine life, with repercussions up the food chain.

  5. December 10, 2009 at 4:59 am

    Dave,As a friend of mine commented regarding the Climategate scandal, "I am not a scientist, but I do know a cover up when I see it, and the entire "climategate" scandal is reason enough to think twice before we let bureaucrats from the United Nations alter our industrial civilization."Could not agree more. We have far more to lose than to gain in our country.Regards,Nick

  6. December 10, 2009 at 3:48 pm

    I agree with Bob for once. To think climate change does not exist is childish. It has changed numerous times in the last 6 billion years. But, as we know, that is not the question. The question is and always has been, is human activities affecting the climate. That is the debate. To state with absolute certainty that it is, is childish and is at worst an attempt to undermine all science for a profit motive, which is pretty evil when you think about it. Cap and trade will tax everyone and produce no effect on CO2 levels. The revelation of the emails describing how pro global warming cast doubt on human caused global warming has ruined quite a few plans by public policy entrepreneurs who were very sure that global warming or climate change was going to be the impetus for remaking society and making money (e.g. Al Gore and his millions so far). This is evil and a redistribution of wealth. Plain and simple. Can someone answer or justify why scientists had to falsify, alter or hide dissenting data? Can someone please explain why media shows the portion of the Antarctic and the monster bergs breaking off when scientific data shows the Antarctic shelf increasing in mass since 1979?Dr. Jones and his global warming alarmist colleagues have a fundamental problem: The planet hasn't warmed since 1998, and — according to satellite measurements — has cooled significantly in the last two years. The emails indicate how they dealt with it. Blogger Ed Morrissey summarizes:"Prominent environmental scientists organize a boycott of scientific journals if those journals publish scholarly material from global warming dissidents."The scientists then orchestrate attacks on the dissidents because of their lack of scholarly material published in scientific journals."The scientists block from the UN's report on global warming evidence that is harmful to the anthroprogenic global warming consensus."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."The scientists fabricate data when their data fails to prove the earth is warming."The heart of the scientific method is falsifiability. Scientists share data with each other to see whether or not their experiments can be replicated. By massaging data to meet a preconceived conclusion, and by hiding data from skeptical colleagues, Dr. Jones and his associates were acting more like scam artists.For instance, in an email Nov. 16, 1999, Dr. Jones told three other scientists: "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps for each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." ("Mike" is Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State University, author of the "hockey stick" graph of global temperatures which Canadian researchers Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKittrick demonstrated to be fraudulent. "Keith" is Dr. Keith Briffa of the CRU, whose temperature graphs from tree ring data from Yamal, Russia, also have been shown by McIntyre and McKittrick to be unreliable.)What are they trying to hide? Why destroy data? Common sense just tells you that something is wrong.

  7. December 10, 2009 at 6:37 pm

    I listened to only a portion of the Jeff Bliss segment. But I think the most telling part of what I heard, was when Dave asked Jeff for evidence in those hacked emails of a cover-up by scientists and climatologists. Jeff failed to give even one example to back his point. How pathetic is it that Jeff would go on the radio to help publicize this dubious story of a big "climate change cover up", then couldn't even give one example to back his assertion. Jeff's lame excuse was, he hadn't had a chance to "read all the emails". If Jeff couldn't think of one example of a cover-up in the emails he had read, what made him believe any of the emails pointed to an orchestrated cover-up?….This is just another example of Fox News pushing a story with no stubstance and moronic drones like Jeff Bliss stupidly echoing an opinion they know nothing about.

  8. December 10, 2009 at 6:43 pm

    Hey New Tone, why don't you explain to everybody what is so funny and clever about contracting Al Gore's name to algore? I sign my posts "algore", as a way to mock people who tell jokes and blindly repeat taunts they don't understand. Maybe you have a secret joke or motive for contracting his name that I don't get. I'm ready for you to educate me.

  9. December 10, 2009 at 9:08 pm

    Climate change deniers, including those who admit climate change but deny any human cause of such, have much in common, intellectually and morally, with Holocaust deniers. To admit the obvious, they would be acknowledging that their world view up to that point perpetuates unnecessary death and suffering for the sake of their narrow-minded, narcissistic, short-sighted self-interests, which, fundamentally are based on deep seated fear, insecurity and cowardice. They are vampires, willing to suck Earth dry, in a vain attempt to forestall their own inevitable death. They so fear their own death, extinguishing nature and the lives of others provides them the illusion of having control over their own mortality. Their souls are shriveled and lonely; death of others to them means companionship on their path to the grave. They are dead men walking, they are dittoheads, they are zombies, they are suicides wanting to take the rest of the students in the classroom with them in perverse glory blazing in their brains alone. They are contagious. They are terminal.

  10. December 10, 2009 at 9:26 pm

    elvis, my response did include a specific of a coverup. What is your response? Also, a group has filed a freedom of information suit to get NASA to supply their temperature data. Nasa refuses to release this data. This begs the question….WHY. By not releasing it, it just makes one think their data does not support their hypothesis. I personnally do not know whether humans and human activity can alter the climate. I do know insects produce more CO2 than humans and human activity.

  11. December 10, 2009 at 9:27 pm

    Hoosier: So you stated that the question is: "is (are) human activities affecting the climate."; I disagree, in that the question really is (or should be): Have human activities contributed to global climate change, how much have human activities contributed to climate change, and how can we reduce our impact on our environment? To deny that any human activity has degraded the environment, which could logically lead to a change in our climate is foolish, just as thinking that all human activity has contributed to climate change would be. There is mounting evidence that our seas are becoming saturated with higher and higher carbon levels, measured as higher alkalinity is causing more stress to not only the life in the seas (which we harvest quite a bit of for our sustenance) but also the seas themselves are having a "cause and effect" by having just a very slight increase in sea temperature we have more ice melting at both poles, and by having less ice on the poles, those important "heat sinks" that usually help keep temperatures lower, we see a quicker increase in overall temperature. The important thing to remember is that the earth is a living organism, with great capacity to absorb and treat or correct abnormalities such as the pollution we have dumped into the atmosphere, but like all organisms, there is a saturation point beyond which there comes a "point of no return". As humans, if we have an increase in our body temperature of more than five degrees, we die. Scientists are concerned right now about the earth warming up five degrees (Celsius) that would have very devastating effects; to deny that there is any man made causes contributing to global climate change is not addressing the very real potential problem that needs to be addressed sooner, not later. Politically speaking, there is no such thing as "coincidence", and the so-called "Climategate" memos are, just as the anonymous poster stated, just another attempt to deride real science and silence anyone who doesn't "believe" that global climate change is a hoax. Regardless of what is really in these emails, regardless of what the political climate is, the "real" science will either stand up and support the assertions of climate change, or they won't. But that should be the work of scientists, not political advisers or policy wonks.

  12. December 10, 2009 at 10:29 pm

    Hoosier, are you Jeff Bliss? In your last post you reference your "response". If you are Jeff Bliss, you've had a few days to think about the question. Have you come up with a better answer yet than the pathetic attempt when you were on Dave's show? I'm certain in your mind, you thought you gave a pretty smooth response. But you see I was actually listening to the substance of what you were saying and you failed to give a specific example where scientists admitted to a cover-up or that climate change is not happening. You even gave the weak disclaimer that you hadn't "read all the emails". If you so expertly answered the question, why did you have to offer the disclaimer? Now's your opportunity to clear up any misunderstanding, please share with us your "smoking gun". As for the NASA deal, what records do you think they are trying to cover up? Is NASA only covering up data collected during the 10 months of the Obama administration, or were they also covering up data during the Bush administration? Anybody with half a brain knows if George W. Bush had data that contradicted conventional wisdom on climate change, he would have publicized that data. I find it very interesting that you are convinced that NASA, under the Bush administration, was able to conceal contradicting climate data from the world. Your logic doesn't make sense in the real world Jeff. ….Jeff Bliss is Hoosier21, wow, I'm shocked but not suprised.

  13. December 11, 2009 at 1:40 pm

    Elvis, I don't know who Jeff Bliss is. So, the rest of your thread is meaningless to me.Bob, quit jumping all over. I thought we were talking about climate change. You are off on some environmental tangent. Of course humans have degraded the environment. Of course the oceans are increasing in CO2 levels because they are warmer. No we don't have more ice melting in the arctic's. The Antarctic is increasing in mass. But your logic tie is based on passion and not on facts. Where is the data that ties the two together. Environmental and climate scientist know very little about physics, chemistry and biology. I will attach a link to a very good article which is very long, but worth the read. It explains, in somewhat laymen terms, the faults with your logic ties. These are scientific explanations based on chemistry, physics, and research. (Elvis, even with a half a brain I can understand it). Now, do I think we should clean up and take care of our environment. Yes. Do I believe the earth temperature is rising because of human activities. No, but wish it were so. It would be far better than a coming ice age.I see no one has answered my questions. Why won't NASA release the records and why did the British org feel they had to alter, hide, falsify and not include dissenting papers on climate change?http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.htmlMaybe some of this is over Elvis's head, but then again chemistry, physics, and biology were my majors and minors in school.Have a great day!

  14. December 12, 2009 at 4:56 pm

    Exhaustive study shows global climate change science was NOT "faked" and that the evidence supports that human caused greenhouse gasses ARE contributing to global warming:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091212/ap_on_sc/climate_e_mailsApologies are due and its about time the climate change deniers start accepting responsibility for their contribution to the destruction of Earth and the death and suffering of multitudes of people.

  15. December 12, 2009 at 9:58 pm

    Because of its length, the link address I posted above was cut off. Here it is again, separated onto two lines. Put it together to create the address and read the story:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091212/ap_on_sc/climate_e_mails

  16. December 13, 2009 at 3:49 am

    Elvis or whateverIf you are still counting on AP as being fair and balanced you are living in a dark cave pal. By the way, is Obama binlanden in there with you? LOL

  17. December 13, 2009 at 3:23 pm

    So where do you get all YOUR "fair and balanced" information, "Mr. Anonymous"? What is YOUR trusted news source?How is is that every fact that goes against your maniacal viewpoint is suspect? What is is about the FACTS in the AP story that you consider falsified? If they are falsified and you can prove it, you've got your own MAJOR scoop. But no, you're just mired in some perverse, meglo-maniacal, narcissistic fantasy world, where facts can't compete with the fungal notions festering in your brain.

  18. December 13, 2009 at 7:31 pm

    elvis, in your AP article here are a few of the many lies. Documented lies.1) They say the emails were stolen. Fact: They were NOT stolen but rather just put on a public server by someone that worked there. We lovers of the truth call that whistle blowing NOT theft.2)AP says the facts don't support that global warming was "faked".Fact: Global warming data was dishonestly manipulated to show a different result than the facts would support. The e-mailers called it "A trick", nothing was faked. Big difference especially in a court of law.This is true from the article (near the end I might add) "One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid sharing scientific data with critics skeptical of global warming." OUCH!AP was also trying to distance themselves as they (AP & AP reporters) were mention many times in the damaging emails stating that AP was merely a "voice" for the warmers and against the skeptics. Hahahaha! No wonder AP wrote this pack of lies! They were implicated in the scandal! elvis? Do read all the way to the bottom or just till you read what you want to hear?

  19. December 13, 2009 at 8:36 pm

    Response:1) The e-mails WERE stolen. If I someone takes your car without your permission and offers it up for any member of the public to use, that is stealing. Same with the e-mails.2) Information was NOT falsified. With statistics and analysis, graphs, etc., there can be many ways to present the information, all factual, but some ways that more graphically illustrate or emphasize a point or theory. That is all that went on in this situation, as the FACTS show.3) Not surprised that the scientists would not be eager to share information with a bunch of crack-pots and nut-cases and angry and mean-spirited fringe dwelling conservatives who will, as we see so clearly now, will use every opportunity to mischaracterize facts to support their own propaganda. Why cooperate with the enemies of reason?Mr. "Anonymous" you have a long and sordid history of coming to this forum and making statements and predictions that have consistently been incorrect and malicious. You have made numerous wild predictions, not one that has ever come true. Where in the world do YOU get YOUR information, and WHY should anyone in their right mind put their trust in you rather that the Associated Press? You needn't answer these questions, because based on your track record, how can anyone take you seriously? How can anyone in their right mind trust you about ANYTHING? Your credibility is totally bankrupt.

  20. December 14, 2009 at 6:48 am

    To deny the far reaching effects of AGW is either based on ignorance or dishonesty.To think that there is a substantive difference between Republican and Democratic poiticians is much the same.

  21. December 14, 2009 at 7:49 am

    Hey Elvis,The reason that I call the Former Vice President Albert Gore Jr. algore is because as the son of a Albert Gore Sr. who supported segregation in this country he has had a life of advantage. algore's house uses as much electricity as 120 average homes. He flies on private jets, rides in limos, and does as he pleases as he profits from his railing on the use of carbon producing items. He is undeserving of anything but a non-capitalized algore since he is such a pile of rubbish and a liar.

  22. December 14, 2009 at 7:53 am

    I know I know, you think it is supposed to be Owl Gore. Here is your def. of Owl Gore smarty pants. A newly-discovered form of leukemia, found in the barnyard, great horned, and spotted owls of Tennessee. Researchers believe it is the result of excessive, high-voltage transmissions from the many, many electrical lines required to service the mansion of Internet-inventor Albert Gore, Jr. Attempts to cure the disease via owl chemotherapy have been foiled by the environmentally-destructive, polluting effects of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's large, fuel-guzzling personal jet. Due to the rapidly-declining owl population in Tennessee, the rats have grown in size and number, and are threatening to take over the state capitol in Nashville.Al Gore is to blame for destroying the environment by causing owl gore. Yesterday, I saw a rat as fat as Al….he was driving a pick-up truck with a Hussien Obama for President bumper sticker!

  23. December 14, 2009 at 5:45 pm

    It's great that so much attention is focusing on the summit in Copenhagaen…and that the United States is participating. Even if the results seem meager, for the world's nations to come together and work together on environmental issues is something quite remarkable in the scope of history and is a step toward further cooperation in the future. There is a good reason we use the term Mother Nature. Earth really is like a mother. It is sacred and should be treated as such. If we can't accept Earth as something sacred and worthy of our greatest care, there is little hope for humanity. I think of the phrase "Is there nothing sacred"? It seems that humanity too often takes so much for granted, showing no respect for even that to which we owe our very existence. Earth, our mother, we desecrate and treat as if it were nothing more than a souless stone that we can forever chip away at. But Earth is a living entity, every bit as alive as any of us. It is sacred and should always be treated as such. To not appreciate that is to live a life of shallowness; blind to the radiance of the greatest gem in existence, of value beyond measure.

  24. December 14, 2009 at 6:41 pm

    It is a bit funny the wise guys and elviss argument for global warming is based on whether the e mails were stolen or not. Aboslute truth, the hockey stick graph Al Gore used is incorrect. Absolute truth, 1934 was the warmest year on record, not 1998 as Al Gore stated. Absolute truth, Greenland ice core samples prove the earth warms first and is followed by CO2 increases. You can not violate laws of physics! Can someone provide scientific proof the CO2 is causing climate change. Not that the earth is warming, but proof CO2 is the cause.

  25. December 14, 2009 at 11:54 pm

    Hoosier: Funny how you phrase your comments "absolute truth", but you don't furnish any evidence to prove your assertion; you know, facts, which are "absolute truth". You are asking for proof, how about furnishing some of your own?

  26. December 15, 2009 at 7:20 pm

    But I did Bob! If you had read the article, scientific proof was provided (it was up a couple threads). Nice try though. Let's see, denier's are akin to Holocost deniers? Wow, someone ingested some bad stuff. Poor Al Gore, almost have to feel sorry for him. First, the hockey stick in his film was proven wrong, the ice core samples were proven to invalidate his theory, his movie was removed as a documentary to propaganda under fiction, and now today, his polar ice cap theory was busted as fabrication. He is not having a good year (except monetarily where he is making millions and proving Downtown Bob correct in that some people are evil).

  27. December 15, 2009 at 10:16 pm

    Hoosier: NO, you did not provide proof, facts or evidence; you provided an assertion that what you were typing were "facts", but without links or a url to the site where you got your "facts", you are only providing an assertion. You state that you have the facts to back up your assertion, prove it with the data. The only url you have put up in this thread was to the editorial about "Climategate". You have a nicely written comment as your first entry here, but there was no link to back up your assertions. You want to have anyone accept what you are asserting, you need to back up what you are saying. Don't give me any crap about being lazy and not looking it up for myself, you want to give your statements credence, you have to be the one backing up your assertions. Otherwise you are only blowing smoke; man up, provide the links or shut up.

  28. December 15, 2009 at 11:10 pm

    Well, since you don't want to take the time and go up a few posts, I will REPEAT the url. Now, I will never shut up and when are you going to provide me the url's for the CO2 cause of human warming? Please provide or just shut up. I am just kidding about you shutting up. I need my liberal bias to make my day and love PROVING your wrong. Editorial, I think not.http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.htmlNow, quit blowing smoke and show me the url!!!!

  29. December 16, 2009 at 5:13 am

    The people wanting to dismiss the Climategate, pro-global warming hoaxers are no different than the 9-11 Truthers and those that actually believed Bill Clinton when he said he didn't have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.Bob uses the word 'cognitive dissonnance' (e.g. A condition of conflict or anxiety resulting from inconsistency between one's beliefs and one's actions, such as opposing the slaughter of animals and eating meat.) It is cognitive dissonace to ignore the e-mails, discredit the e-mails while continuing to slander those of us that do not wet our pants over imperceptibly small temperature changes (1 degree over a century) as Wiseguy did. The fact remains that the so-called scientists used "tricks" (their word) to manipulate the data into producing the much ballyhooed "hockey stick graph" and all other global warming paranoia and scaremongering from the lunatic left. Furthermore, it is the utter height of hypocracy to deny the validity of the e-mails. Isn't what those "scientists" did (fact, the e-mails were proven to be genuine) EXACTLY what you loony leftists continue to say Bush-Cheney did to "cherry pick" the intelligence to justify the illegal Iraq invasion? Of course it is! What Preisdent Obama is doing, in cahoots with Algore and every other member of the ICC, is manipulating the climate data in order to illegally take over 1/4th of the world economy (the US isn't alone in this hijacking). Below are links to the e-mails and the discussion about how "going green", Cap-n-trade and all the other eco-nutjob bullshite is not about saving poor Mother Gaia but about controlling the actions of every person in this country. You can read every e-mail at this website.Climate "scientists" wanted Big Oil on board with the hoaxFrom this e-mail, comes this nugget that "climate change" is far from settled science:"For climatologists, the search for an irrefutable "sign" of anthropogenic warming has assumed an almost Biblical intensity. The leading figures of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), claim that, in all probability, they have seen it. Last summer [ed: 1996], the IPCC's scientific working group, chaired by former UK Meteorological Office boss Sir John Houghton, concluded that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate". But it is like the "balance of evidence" suggesting BSE causes CJD. The judgment is far from "beyond reasonable doubt". The case remains "not proven"." Stop talking about it, lunatic leftists, and actually read the e-mails. But of course you won't because that would shake your world view. You will continue to believe in man-made global warming despite the evidence that the only thing "man-made" is the data backing man-made global warming, just as you all continued to deny the evidence that Bill Clinton was a liar despite his "man-made" evidence to the contrary.

  30. December 16, 2009 at 7:16 am

    Tent: Nice post, I will read it in depth and your links, I just have to respond to Hoosier first.Hoosier: You must be misunderstanding my point- you made the statement: "Aboslute truth, the hockey stick graph Al Gore used is incorrect. Absolute truth, 1934 was the warmest year on record, not 1998 as Al Gore stated. Absolute truth, Greenland ice core samples prove the earth warms first and is followed by CO2 increases." What I was asking for was your proof, your evidence that your "absolute truth"(s) are truth, as in, FACTS, meaning, I was asking you to furnish links or urls to back up your assertions (absolute truth[s]) so the rest of us could verify that your assertions are "truth". If memory serves me, I seem to remember that I have pushed you for links or urls before, and you have never delivered; is that going to happen, again?

  31. December 16, 2009 at 3:18 pm

    Let's see who the real deniers are:Following is 20 articles about the hockey stick fraud. IPCC even admits this.http://www.icecap.us/images/uploads/MANNDEBUNKING.docFollowing is the truth about 1934 being the warmest year. NASA admits this.http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/347541/nasa_admits_that_1934_not_1998_was.html?cat=58http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/08/ipcc_criticized_by_renowned_ec_1.htmlFollowing is ariticles that show earth warms first and then is followed by CO2 increases.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/http://www3.hi.is/~oi/Nemendaritgerdir/Ice%20core%20evidence%20for%20past%20climates%20and%20glaciation.pdfI believe those above are the "absolute" truths I stated. So, with this background, are you still a denier? Who is blowing smoke? Where are the links that you say "prove CO2 is the cause for the earth warming? I am sorry if facts are getting in your way. I still support you in that I believe it is evil for the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the world is being undertaken at Copenhagen.

  32. December 16, 2009 at 3:40 pm

    The global warming BS is over for this year and next. We will have the house and senate so it doesn't matter for almost 10 years. India and China will never agree to any restraints and the rest of the poor 3rd world will give up on getting any free money.algore will limp away licking his wounds and bob, dave and wg will look for their next cause.

  33. December 16, 2009 at 7:33 pm

    HERE are the first 15 of 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends. 8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favorable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” – suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that “fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class—predominantly—are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world”.14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity”How's that Bob? lol

  34. December 16, 2009 at 8:20 pm

    Based on the goings on in Copenhagen, it appears that the governments of most nations on Earth agree that curbing green house gasses is beneficial for humanity and the health of the environment. Why would this be?Is this simply a giant conspiracy? And for what purpose?

  35. December 17, 2009 at 4:21 am

    To provide Hoosier some back up (not that he really needs it), here is a link to an American Thinker piece that puts the e-mails into some context. One ofhte biggest flaws of the whole "climate change" scam is that the "scientists" claim that the 20th century is the hotest 'on record'. However, that is a lie. You see, the climate models used by the IPCC CANNOT hindcast what the temperature was back during the medieval optimum, when wine grapes were grown in Greenland. So in reality, scientists have no way of knowing, with current models, what the temperature was back then, so they don't know for fact that we are hotter now than ever before. If they wish to rest on the "ever recorded" caveat, then from what date? 1790? 1690? 90? If the researchers models were so good, then they should be able to tell us what the climate was like on the day Christ was born. Why can't they?If a computer model can't tell you what you already know the temperature was back then(hindcast), then it is not capable of forecasting what future, unknown, temperatures will be. Please resist the urge to ad hominem the website and read the embedded links. I have checked them out and they are all valid. Here is the corrected "hockey stick graph showing what the temperatures really have been over time and that the Micheal Mann graph is a FRAUD!Bob, you want URLs of links to PROOF that ClimateGate is real and that Global Warming is the largest hoax perpetrated on humanity? Go to this websiteClimate DepotThey have every article on ClimateGate showing what a bunch of idiots the global warming lunatics are for running around and screaming "the temperature is rising! the temperature is rising!" like Chicken Little. …or maybe what a bunch of evil pwoergrabers those on the left that are pushing this are.A sensible, responsible president would ORDER a comprehensive, public review of ALL ClimateGate data, previously accepted as "proven science" data by a governmental panel of both skeptics and advocates and come to definitive opinion on global climate change before trying to pass ANYTHING. Oh but not this president. He is running head long to Copenhagen trying to bolster his cap-n-tax cred with a bogus, fraud-ridden Kyoto-like agreement. Once the world takes the blinders off and realizes that the stupid common people that don't understand science were lied to by "scientists" and government officials using fallacious 'appeals to authority', we will come to lionize George W. Bush for refusing to sign America up for the Kyoto Treaty.God bless George W. Bush for seeing through the ClimateGate lies almost 10 years before ClimateGate broke.

  36. December 17, 2009 at 4:22 am

    SomeFactsForBob: You published your "reasons" from the Daily Express (original article: http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138) without citing it.Here is New Scientist magazine's response: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/12/50-reasons-why-global-warming.htmlI'll trust the latter for facts about science instead of an English Tabloid newspaper.

  37. December 17, 2009 at 5:57 am

    Don't misunderstand, I do think that the $1 billion to curb deforestation is a good thing… assuming that Obama can detail how that money would be spent and on what kind of projects. However, the problem with deforestation is that wood is the world's first choice of building material, the first choice of the thrid world as a heating source and all them trees get in the way of those poor, starving people from producing more food. So, while a noble gesture, Obama's billion dollar pledge will be just a billion more dollars we wasted that will cost us a billion and half in principle and interest to repay the Chinese.

  38. December 17, 2009 at 1:47 pm

    Wise Guy. To answer your question, why would this be. It is very, very simple. It's called distribution of wealth. It is a transfer of huge sums of money from the West to developing countries. So, why would 2nd and 3rd world countries be for this? They are the beneficiaries of this great transfer of wealth. We get taxed and they get money to reduce or stop developing. These are despots and dictators who do not care about their citizens and are salivating over the "free" money.Any one here with a link proving CO2 is the cause of climate change?

  39. December 17, 2009 at 5:31 pm

    So, according to Hoosier, all the wealthy nations on Earth are in agreement in wanting to distribute their wealth to poorer nations. And this is all being done by agreeing that curbing greenhouse gas emissions is beneficial for the environment. How or where does one come up with such "logic"? Sarah Palin? Stephen Colbert?

  40. December 17, 2009 at 8:01 pm

    For being a wise guy, you certainly draw extremely poor conclusions. As far as I know, no one has signed anything and even if Obama signs anything, it is not legal. Senate already voted last decade (95-0) that only the Senate can approve this type of treaty.But, of course, you already knew this.

  41. December 17, 2009 at 11:31 pm

    What in the world are you talking about, Hoosier?The wealthy nations of the world are attending Copenhagen because they understand that there is a serious environmental problem that needs to be addressed. They are NOT there, as you would want people to believe, so they can figure out a covert way to hand over their wealth to poor nations. The majority of governments of the world, rich, poor and in-between, agree there is a serious environmental problem. That's why there is a Copenhagen summit that has attracted world-wide participation and attention. Many of these countries can't agree on much else, but they do agree on the greenhouse gas problem. What they haven't agreed to is what they will do about it. Then you have the pretend-science "experts" like Hoosier, who want us to believe that they have contradictory information that has somehow eluded, or is being covered up, by the governments of the majority of nations in the world, all so these governments can "redistribute wealth" in a manner that only the maniacal right wing fringe has a clue about. Give me a break!

  42. December 18, 2009 at 12:37 am

    Isn't the "only the senate can approve treaties" thing written into the the Constitution (Art II, sec 2: "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;")? What does that say about the state of our Republic that the Senate a) feels the need to vote on supporting the Constitution; and b) that it didn't get 100% support from ALL senators?

  43. December 18, 2009 at 7:12 am

    Hoosier: You have asked for an impossibility in asking for someone to "prove" that Co2 is (or already has) caused or is causing global climate change; to say that anyone has "proved" Co2 is the cause cannot be done, not like the causation of lung cancer from smoking; that has been proved. Does that mean that leading scientists haven't worked out climate change models, or scientific theories about climate change? NASA has some ideas about climate change, and they do give much credence to Co2 as a leading cause to climate change. It is not "proof" as you requested, but as I stated, "proof" is not scientifically available yet. Read the NASA page, then show me the flaws in their scientific reasoning, please. And links to blogs by weathermen or to tabloids really don't count as a serious scientific source.

  44. December 18, 2009 at 10:21 pm

    Key international leaders have reached a tentative deal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and curb climate change, the Los Angeles Times has learned, after the United States and China agreed to a method for recording developing nations' pledges to limit emissions and ensuring those pledges are carried out.Details of the agreement were approved in an evening meeting with President Obama, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, sources said.

  45. December 18, 2009 at 10:34 pm

    The real aim behind Copenhagen is to massage the ego of a minority so they can dominate the majority. The only result is that we all have to pay extra taxes to pay for their whims

  46. December 18, 2009 at 10:53 pm

    Bob, the fact is that scientists don't even know if CO2 traps heat, much less if it is responsible for anything. What we do know is that CO2 is a trace gas that is only .03% of the earth's atmosphere. Furthermore, these so-called "scientists" have cooked the books, cherry picked the intel, and have straight out lied to the world to justify their funding for further research. Other climate scientists have stated that the earth's temperature has changed only 1 degree in the last 1 years and the earth's temperature has remained constant over the last 2,000 years, with regular periods of warming and cooling.I think that DRAGONS are responsible for global warming with their hot, fiery breath. Afterall, it takes a mythical creature to create a mythical problem.

  47. December 20, 2009 at 2:24 am

    What we have learned about Obama and his quest for accomplishments is that he will accept anything so long as he can put his name on it and call it a victory. Both conservatives and liberals are chanting "kill the bill" with regard to Obama's health insurance stimulus/freedom killing "reform" (aka healthcare reform). Almost instantly after Obama's supposed "agreement" to curb CO2, every enviromentalist came out against said agreement as worthless because there is no enforcement or verification mechanisms. When you have Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann and Howard Dean both in agreement saying that the health reform bill is bad for America, it has to be a VERY bad bill. Liberals like Dean and Olbermann hate the bill because it lacks a public option and still imposes a criminal penalty enforced insurance mandate. Limbaugh and Palin hate the bill because it is a 2,000 page monstrocity that creates 100 new taxes, thousands of more laws, hundreds of new czars… and it has an insurance mandate that will get you sent to jail if you don't buy insurance, even if you are self-insured like Olbermann, Limbaugh and myself. What Obama is truly after is a victory, any victory, acheived at any price. If, as many on this blog have stated, the Republicans don't have the answer to health reform, why then are liberals still following Obama out of a burning building much less on health care reform when he has given away EVERY ONE of the core issues he campaigned on? He gave away the public option, he gave away the Medicare buy-in, and he has given away federally funded abortion. He let the House and Senate craft different bills and has very, very quietly sat back and let the senate and house negotiate away everything Obama supposedly stood for. The fact is that Obama stands for nothing except politics as usual. Obama is the perfect example of history repeating itself. George Bush acdepted the prescription drug plan with its gapping donut hole so he could campaign in 2004 about delivering a prescription drug plan. Bob hates the drug plan and has railed repeatedly against it. So if Republicans don't have the answer to health care, and if what Obama talked about in his quasi-state of the union speech in where he laid out the parameters of ObamaCare has been negotiated away, how can you liberals call this health reform? Every liberal should turn on this bill faster than golf has turned on Tiger Woods. If this is not the answer, then this bill will be change for change sake and that is change we cannot accept. Copenhagen resulted in an agreement that has no teeth, no verification mechanism and bsically takes China and India at their word to curb greenhouse gases despite the fact that they pollute worse than any other two nations on the planet. Obama is not after "change we can believe in". He is after "changes he can take credit for".

  48. December 20, 2009 at 7:20 pm

    A lot of "armchair scientists" here.Those who desire proof of the validity of global warming, go back to school and study the science behind the issue.You are not qualified to issue a scientific judgement by simply reading about it on the internet.

  49. December 20, 2009 at 9:14 pm

    The fact is that no matter what one feels about the performance of President Obama, most people are confident that we would be in much worse shape if a Republican were in the White House. That goes double when you consider the possibility of either John McCain or Sarah Palin having been elected.

  50. December 21, 2009 at 8:59 am

    More fraudulent appeals to authority from liberals that don't like it when people question them.What is idiotic is how you lunatic liberals still cling to CO2 as the prime culprit for "global warming". Fact is that WATER VAPOR is the number one contributor to any greenhouse effect. Read it here. The article I cite here says the following: "In terms of mass, water vapour is much more prevalent (about 0.3% of atmospheric mass, compared to about 0.06% for CO2), and so is ~80% of all greenhouse gases by mass (~90% by volume)." You don't have to be a scientist, armchair or otherwise, to be able to understand 3rd Grade math. That 3rd grade math is that water vapor is FIVE TIMES the "greenhouse gas" than CO2 is. Why aren't you nutbags trying to regulate water vapor? Because there isn't a big industry like petrochemicals associated with water vapor. Global Warming, climate change, or whatever you want to call it today is a ruse, a sham, a con, and an usurpation of basic human freedoms all under the guise of "saving the earth", "greening your routine" or any other worthless, hypocritical liberal palaver. Oh, and I love what it takes to get health care reform passed under Obama's watch. The senate is going to vote on ObamaCare (Senate style) since Harry Reid agreed to indemnify the state of Nebraska in perpetuity against 100% of any affects of ObamaCare. That is a bribe, sure as shit, to Ben Nelson for him to vote for it. If I was Diane Feinstein or Barbara Boxer, I would withdraw my support for ObamaCare until California received the same "consideration" that po-dunk Nebraska got. What utter fools you liberals are! And you are corrupt to the very core.

  51. December 21, 2009 at 6:24 pm

    Each day humans operate hundreds of millions of internal combustion engines plus an immeasurable number of other devices that generate heat easily exceeding 100 degrees and spew toxic gases into the atmosphere. This has all been happening in only the past 150 years or so, continually escalating through the entire period.And these "conservative" extremists are trying to tell us that this does not make any significant difference to our environment; as if any effects simply go away like magic. These climate change deniers are trying to wash their hands of personal responsibility, while confounding common sense, reason and morality, advocating attitudes that ultimately cause unnecessary disease, starvation, death and other forms of suffering, not to mention desecration and destruction of so much natural, sacred beauty. For what?

  52. December 22, 2009 at 3:06 am

    I will respond to Wise Guy the exact same way the lunatic left responded to the Bush Administration on the eve and post-Iraq Invasion: All your points are invalid since your side has repeatedly and systematically LIED about the existance of greenhouse gases, the importance of those greenhouse gases and all of the data supporting anthrogenic Co2 has now been called into question due to the East Anglican e-mails. Regardless if you lack a degree in any enviromental science (thereis n't one) or are too stupid to read simple english language, those e-mails are ABSOLUTELY a smpoking gun to a conspiracy, reasons are irrelevant, to a concerted effort to mislead the world public on the existance and the dnagers of carbon dioxide emissions. Copenhagen should have been a moment to reflect and go "WTF?" with regards to climate change, the urgency and the very need for ANY climate change accord in light of those e-mails. But since there are no reasoned, rational people at these confabs, only devotees and acolytes of the Algore "let's all shit our pants over too much CO2" global warming religion, Obama and every other world leader plunged head long into the equivalent of the Iraq invasion. if what is said about the run-up to the iraq invasion is true, then there is no difference between Bush-Cheney cooking the Iraq books for an illegal invasion and the Obama-Biden team cooking the books for an illegal climate change invasion.Period.Let us all start the "Impeach Obama NOW!" chants since Obama is just as criminally culpable for this as Bush is for Iraq.

  53. December 22, 2009 at 3:59 am

    And the ancedotal evidence against Global warming/climate change/the need for Obama's Copenhagen accord continue to mount:80 die during European big freezeEast Coast digs out of record snowfallsMidwest braces for its turn of winter stormsThe newest joke going around the east coast is: "So, how many inches of Global Warming did you get this weekend?"

  54. December 22, 2009 at 2:28 pm

    Finally, we have common ground. I fully agree we have an environmental problem. This has nothing to do with CO2 warming the earth though. Pretend science? Physicists, chemists and biologists are pretend scientists? Did you read anything? I have put documented proof that the hockey stick graph was a lie, documented proof that in the past, the earth warms first followed by CO2 increase. Did you see the seventy seven 3rd world countries walk out because they wanted more money? Open your eyes Wise Guy. Bob, climate change models have already been proven wrong. Lot's of links to this one. I have been waiting for someone to go after the only thing they have to go on, climate models. So, bottom line, no proof that CO2 causes earth's warming and plenty of data that shows it doesn't. I read the NASA article and you are correct. No data, no proof, all supposition. I did find it ironic that they showed the Antarctic ice shelf and talked about calving, but did not bother to state that the ice pack is growing in mass in the Antarctic.Scott, the issue is not whether there is or isn't global warming. Don't need to go to school to know this. It is about whether CO2 is the cause. Schools can not teach you that. Only scientist, physicist, chemists, climatologist, research etc can. Apparently Wise Guy has not seen the latest polls.

  55. December 23, 2009 at 6:00 am

    The "conservatives" continue to try to swim against the tide of progress and evolution, tempering their increasing frustration with self-righteousness, fueled by the fact that through the internet they can always find some like-minded people to comfort them as they bang their heads against the walls of history.As a practical matter, they don't even seem to appreciate that even record snow falls in no way contradicts the fact of overall global warming and accelerated climate change in general. Their viewpoints always seem to come down to an "us vs. them" attitude, unwilling to accept that fostering world-wide unity is fundamental to the long term health of humanity and Earth.

  56. December 25, 2009 at 1:15 am

    I think that Presdient Obama and all 60 Democrats should get lumps of coal in their stockings for forcing this abomination of a healthcare bill on the 56% Americans that don't want it. The have lied, lied, and lied to the American people about how it is "deficit neutral" and how it will "cut costs". these lies come in the form of the assumptions Congress gave the CBO to score the bills with. The healthcare bill supporters claim it will reduce the deficit in the first decade. It does this by collecting taxes starting January 1 of 2010 but not actually paying out any benefits until January 2013. The Democrats will collect taxes from Americans, even those that don't want the non-public option public option, for four years before they provide one American with "free" healthcare. That is criminal. That is taxation without represenation for th 56% of Americans that don't want this piece of crap. Furthermore, it is unconstitutional throughout. There is a provision in the Senate language that says that only the 60 memmbers of the senate can kill the Medicare Advisory Board that is created in the Senate version. How is that remotely Constitutional? We all, those of us with brains, know it is not, but that never stopped a power hungery Democrat before. Merry Christmas, everyone, and good health to you… at least until the statist in the Democrat party have a say on it. Then it is just going to be "and I pray you don't get sick, because Big Brother Liberal will be dispensing your healthcare to you."

  57. January 6, 2010 at 2:28 pm

    I am still waiting for the links to show that man caused CO2 emissions is causing global warming.

  58. January 12, 2010 at 1:30 pm

    Seems the UN came out today and said we could possibly be entering a mini ice age. Hmmmm.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.htmlBob, your link.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: