Democrats try to stop inquiry into Climategate [Reader Post]

Loading

Photobucket

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has begun an investigation into whether Michael Mann manipulated data to show a rapid acceleration in global warming and Virginia Democrats are out to stop him.

Democratic Sens. Donald McEachin of Henrico and Chap Petersen of Fairfax County say their bills won’t give blanket immunity to colleges to defraud the state, but they would curb politically motivated probes.

Whether it’s a mindless shooting or climate change, Democrats never let a crisis go to waste.

Note that Democrats assert the investigation to be “politically motivated.” Does anyone imagine the climate change machine is something other than politically motivated?

And its no wonder they don’t want anyone peering behind the curtain. A report claiming that the Earth would see a huge increase in temperature over the next decade leading to massive food shortages was found to be terribly flawed. It’s called “an honest mistake.”

But that didn’t stop Scientific American from trumpeting it in big bold type.

Photobucket

Oops.

We have heard recently from the Goracle about the floods in Australia:

“As the earth warms, scientists tell us that we will see more and more extreme weather conditions. Each of these occurrences further underscore why we need to take immediate action to solve the climate crisis,” Gore wrote on his website Tuesday.

It wasn’t that long ago that the droughts alone in Australia were caused by global warming. Read the article carefully. Note that the word “flood” does not appear, but this does:

“This is the first drought in Australia where the impact of human-induced global warming can be clearly observed.”

Because it fits the model.

Their model.

Droughts are nothing new to Australia.

“From June until the present time so little rain has fallen that most of the runs of water in the different parts of the harbour have been dried up for several months, and the run which supplies this settlement is greatly reduced, but still sufficient for all culinary purposes… I do not think it probable that so dry a season often occurs. Our crops of corn have suffered greatly from the dry weather.”

That was written in 1791

Neither are Australian floods new.

See this prediction from 2007:

”It’s reasonable to say that a lot of the current drought of the last 12 to 13 years is due to ongoing global warming,” said the bureau’s Bertrand Timbal.

”In the minds of a lot of people, the rainfall we had in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s was a benchmark. A lot of our [water and agriculture] planning was done during that time. But we are just not going to have that sort of good rain again as long as the system is warming up.”

Mr.Timbal’s prognostication didn’t pan out so well. Once again- note that he said nothing of floods.

Australia’s state of Queensland finds itself facing what one official described as flooding of ‘biblical proportions.’ Dozens of towns have been submerged as rivers overran their banks from heavy rains and claimed at least eight lives in the process.

But today, both floods and droughts are caused by global warming.

Because it fits the new model. The new, better model.

Remember this classic from 2000?

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

See anything in that article about cold and snow in the future- other than it won’t be there?

Nope. Remember that.

And the esteemed Hadley Centre?

David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes – or eventually “feel” virtual cold.

Children in Britain have just gotten a crash course in snow and cold.

Last month was the chilliest December in 100 years and one of the coldest months ever recorded in the UK, the Met Office said today.

The Met Office also said that December both “cold and snowy” and “dry and sunny.”

In between the snow storms, presumably.

And now we are told that global warming causes both more snow and less snow, at least in New York City.

The critical point of argument here is that in past warming predictions did not include more flooding along with droughts. Warming predictions did not include more snow and more bitterly cold winters along with less snow and warmer temperatures. Why not? Why are we hearing about this only now?

But now weather matters. Because it fits the model.

The one they just made up.

If it fits, it’s climate change. If it doesn’t fit, it’s weather.

A cynical person might suggest that they’re full of crap.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
71 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@oil guy from Alberta:
Even before 1987 some influential Public Health doctors and nurses were begging for HIV infected persons to be quarantined.
But the homosexual community took that as a homophobic attack rather than a public health defense.
The homosexuals won that battle but lost the war.
Tens of thousands of them got infected needlessly.
All for a perceived civil right.
I can remember my mom, an older woman by then, and a nurse practitioner, discouraging my youngest brother out of a career in nursing because of the prevalence of accidental exposures that took place back then.
I can also remember the quarantine sign on the door of the family with German Measles, the other family where someone had TB.
They got to stay at home, for Pete’s sake!
It wasn’t like they’d be locked up behind bars!

Rich- There is a HUGE difference between you and Brob. You can disagree or bring up an opposing view and stay civil. He seems to have a serious emotional or anger issue which is why I avoided dialogue with him even if there was some common ground. Kudos to Curt for bouncing him and don’t lower yourself by comparing yourself to him.

Greg – you just keep making shit up and not providing any links only serves to show you for the talking point regurgitating, liberal drone that you are.

You said something about the military believing global warming. Do you also trust the United States Department of Energy?

The problem with such seemingly serious assertions regarding CO2 is that, in spite of its increasing presence, it still remains just a trace gas in the atmosphere. As of November 2007, the CO2 concentration in Earth’s atmosphere was estimated at 0.0382% by volume, or 382 parts per million by volume.

Another problem is that natural production of CO2 from such sources as combustion of organic matter, natural decay of vegetation, volcanic emissions, and the natural respiration of all aerobic organisms dwarfs that produced by fossil fuel burning. The U.S. Department of Energy has released estimates that nearly 97% of total CO2 emissions would occur even if humans were not present on Earth and that, because of the overwhelming presence of water vapor, manmade CO2 causes less than 0.12% of Earth’s greenhouse effect. To attribute so much power to affect the earth’s climate to a man-made gas so minor in amount would appear to defy common sense.

Put another way, if accumulation of greenhouse gases has any impact on global warming, Department of Energy data indicates nearly 99.9% would have to be attributed to natural causes. Nevertheless, AGW proponents blame approximately 1/1000 of all produced planetary CO2 — this trace gas which, in its totality, comprises less than 4/10,000 of the atmosphere — as the principal cause of climate change because it provides the only way to link global warming to human activity. – Source

Didja notice what I did there Greg? I provided a source. Try it sometime.

The same article further states:

* The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports that low altitude atmosphere temperature data obtained from satellite measurements show global temperatures have not risen since 1998 and have cooled slightly in the last five years in spite of rising CO2 levels each year.

* Another NOAA and NASA project, monitoring 3,000 buoys deployed around the world’s oceans, confirms static or slightly cooling ocean temperatures in the same time period.

* The National Snow and Ice Data Center reports that arctic ice coverage measured in 2009 is little changed from 2008 and greater than 2007.

* In a 2004 paper published in Global and Planetary Change [10], Stockholm University professor Nils-Axel Mörner, of Sweden reports that rising sea levels predicted for the Maldives island chain due to global warming are not showing expected results. He concludes that the sea level about the Maldives has actually fallen approximately 11 inches in the past 50 years. He notes: “In our study of the coastal dynamics and the geomorphology of the shores we were unable to detect any traces of a recent sea level rise. On the contrary, we found quite clear morphological indications of a recent fall in sea level.”

* At the 2007 UN High Level Meeting on Climate Change, the Deputy Prime Minister of Tuvalu, Tavau Teii, said that major greenhouse polluters should pay Tuvalu for the impacts of climate change due to its loss of land to ocean encroachment. However, recent geological studies show Tuvalo is “sinking” due to excavation of coral for hotel and infrastructure construction [11]. The mining has severely compromised the atolls, creating the impression that the islands are sinking, when in fact they’re merely being dug up.

BTW, the new science czar John Holdren also was predicting a new ice age in the 70’s.

Thank you Mr. Anticsrocks, you are absolutely right. Everybody pay attention, he has good sources and commonsense. The National Center for policy Analysis is the best source I have found for explaining what GW is about. http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/GlobalWarmingPrimer.pdf

Years ago, I subscribed to Scientific American; until, I realized it had become nothing more than a Marxist propaganda rag. It was really sad, SA was a good way to keep up on scientific developments in many different fields.

@Wm T Sherman:

Wm T Sherman:

In your first response to me, you made the claim…”carbon dioxide has a uniform concentration throughout the troposphere”…this according to JPL & NASA is incorrect. In their recently released AIRS CO2 data, proves the “uniform concentration” theory to be false. At one time the theory was accepted as fact, but based on empirical data from their satellite observations, this is no longer the case. The AIRS mission was launched in 2002 aboard the Aqua Spacecraft.

From AIRS…

Significant Findings from AIRS Data

Carbon dioxide is not homogeneous in the mid-troposphere; previously it was thought to be well-mixed

The distribution of carbon dioxide in the mid-troposphere is strongly influenced by large-scale circulations such as the mid-latitude jet streams and by synoptic weather systems, most notably in the summer hemisphere

There are significant differences between simulated and observed CO2 abundance outside of the tropics, raising questions about the transport pathways between the lower and upper troposphere in current models

Zonal transport in the southern hemisphere shows the complexity of its carbon cycle and needs further study

http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/data/about_airs_co2_data/

In your second response to me, you made the statement…”Your claim that atmospheric CO2 has a general tendency to concentrate in low lying areas, or anywhere else, is false.”. At this time I would love your incite as to how the ocean can act as a “CO2 sink” if CO2 does not settle out of the atmosphere and migrate to the sea. Also in 1992 and 1993 two terrestrial “CO2 sinks” have been identified in the Northern Hemisphere. Would you be so kind as to ad your input on how these might function without the migration of CO2 settling out of the atmosphere.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/269/5227/1098.abstract

Thank you in advance…

@anticsrocks, #53: “You said something about the military believing global warming. Do you also trust the United States Department of Energy?”

I don’t recall mentioning that recently, but since you bring it up, here’s the statement of Rear Admiral David Titley, Oeanographer of the Navy, made before a House committee two months ago.

@Greg, nice way to avoid the points I made in my post.

I scrolled up and realized that it was John who mentioned the military.

And our military are they all in it [global warming hoax] also ?

So I apologize for getting your’s and John’s names mixed up. It would appear that in this instance, you aren’t the one making shit up.

Therefore I will direct my comments at John

Well Joh, what say you about my post?

We all know it is a political hoax birthed in that anti-sovereignity pit called the UN. The fact is that they’ve set this eco-crap up for decades, knowing they needed a hoax that could transcend national boundries. Tah dah, it’s weather, no, climate, no ice age, no global warming, no climate change, no CO pollution, no its whatever is happening outside today is a crisis — the only cure is taxes and no more of that evil capitalism.

Maybe some of you forgot that President Bill Clinton summoned 33(?) meteorologists to the Whitehouse once to educate them about global warming?
Look, Gorbachov signaled that communism didn’t fail – just the Soviet style, and then he immediately became head of Green Cross of the World. What more do rational people need when they are such transparent liars? The answer is equally simple: they don’t care what rational people realize they’re up to, because it’s the massive amounts of atrophied brained dead idiots they want; those who can’t wait to see Cap’t Planet do in the bad business people. It’s called scapegaoting and capitalism is the scapegoat. Oh, if only the big government can save us in time. Vote for Obama and he’ll rid the planet of excess babies in nothing flat. Abortion and eco-extremism are two sides of the same coin folks.

To all you GW people- We’ve had “climate change” for 4 billion years, but now there’s some “perfect” temperature that the earth is supposed to be kept at? Ok, Sure.

Yes, we have had climate change for billions of years. However what we haven’t had is some scam to extract money from richer countries to be funneled to poorer countries.

And BTW, thank you for admitting that man is not responsible for climate change.

Much appreciated.

@John:
Your fictional allegations about Sen. Inhofe’s beliefs betray your desperation. Pitiful, really.

Ok, Antirocks here’s a major question for you to seriously sit and think about since you believe in fake sciences: What caused the last Little Ice Age and what century did it start in and what early part of another Century did it end? Hint: Industrial Age had nothing to do with its end.

Second Question for you to ponder: What magma North American volcanic super-structure is recently in the news and is suspect at causing the last major ice age 100,000 years ago in conjunction with the carbon dated signs of the Ring of Fire in the Pacific?

Since I suspect you might try to argue that man somehow caused those previous periods of sheer warming before the sudden temp declines, might as well give you the short stick of the answers: 1300’s to 1800’s were the little Ice Age believed to be caused by exteremly weak Solar Wind activites in conjunction with Volcanic super-structure activity in the Southern Pacific (from geological data gatherings.) The joke, “Christmas in July” stems from a 1760’s comment about it snowing in the American Colonies in July while later on in the early 1810’s (1812 so to speak) British military officers comment on how warm and temperate it is and feasible to move troops and ships in the American south than what they were expecting.

Yellowstone Caldera in conjunction with Pacific superstructures are responsible for for the much longer and far more impacting major ice age that was roughly 100,000 years ago. (again geological surveys suggest at this.)

It is sheer classic practice that you keep harping this soap box while Iceland’s recent activity blows all connections of Man to Warming or Cooling. The damages we should be concerend with, if any with environment is flora damages as this will lead to the inablity for land based ecospheres to thrive (examples would be chop and burn actions in jungle or other forested lands.) Oh wait, what’s this? America for the last 30 years have made it a major policy issue to reforest our reigons that have been strip mined or targeted by excessive timber harvests. Conservation polices are in place in our nation, but the groups like ELF and ALF have done some very problematic things by firebombing certain key areas that have spread into wildfires in forested areas in the past decade.

Mr. Irons,
Obviously you have me mistaken for someone who believes in AGW – that is man made global warming. Where you got that idea is beyond me.

If you want proof, then please check out an article I wrote on my blog back in June of ’09.

Global warming, such as it is will be present on Earth despite man’s activities. History shows that they were growing grapes on the island that is now Great Britain long before man began burning fossil fuels.

http://www.letsgogardening.co.uk/Information/Grapes.htm

I do apologize. Had another comment section glitched with yours.

Apology accepted.