Rising Hegemon
It was obvious to anyone who actually bothered to read the stolen "climategate" emails that they didn't actually contain anything particularly scandalous, and they certainly didn't contain anything at all that remotely called into the question the legitimacy of years of science demonstrating the effect of human activity on climate change.
But once the name "climategate" was affixed to the trumped-up non-scandal and printed in large type in a major newspaper, it didn't matter what the emails said. Not a whit. Emails, scandal, "-gate" -- there must be something to this!
There wasn't. Amazingly, The Sunday Times of London has now effectively retracted its most damning stories on the manufactured outrage. Months too late, obviously.
Of course, the talk radio fucktards are not going to correct their own record, if they did that, they'd have nothing else to talk about for decades. No, because of this patently made up story that was perpetuated by a large group of idiots that either didn't understand -- or more importantly didn't care -- climate legislation was effectively killed.
Awesome.
12 comments:
And who would be the owner of the Sunday Times of London...?
Hint: He's a former Aussie who also owns the Wall St. Journal.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence.
It's just more grist for the mill, next time some idiot open his yap to talk about how fat Al Gore is we can present our list of RW lies and falsehoods on this matter and they will have ... nada.
There's just so much. There's the forged constituent letters that came from D.C. lobby firm Bonner & Associates, the Koch Industries astroturfing, etc. etc.
But my favorite is the "petition" supposedly signed by 10s of thousands of "scientists" including those famous Nobel Prize winners Perry Mason, Gerri Halliwell and John Grisham.
Oy.
Ah, well, I don't pretend to understand all the climate science (although I do understand some of it), but, what I do know--in spades--is that there are some extremely wealthy people whose wealth might not continue to increase as easily and in as great a proportion if society begins to take anthropogenic climate change seriously, and that they've been doing their utmost to change public opinion with distortions and misrepresentations of the evidence at every opportunity.
They are also people who are quite happy to see the government misapply the precautionary principle when that will lead to war and greater profits, but scream bloody murder if they think it's going to interfere with their hobby, avarice.
That, I would say, is ample evidence of a conflict of interest in the matter, and that prejudices their views on the matter.
Still beating the old global warming--oops "climate change" )gotta cover all the bases) saw?
The only warming I see is scrotal warming from the High Priestess Al Gore in Portland when he comes in contact with massage therapists
Ah, I see O&A is still on his favorite hobby horse--defending the indefensible--and using lame, unsubstantiated and irrelevant arguments to do it.
Some things--unlike global warming--don't change.
...my worry is that they did understand and did care (for all the wrong reasons) and made their choices on that basis. Money trumps 'future' all the time for certain people...
...and O&A/Anonymous needs to grow a few more brain cells so it can understand that this is a subject that is basically all grown up and has moved out of the house into its own place; Al Gore stories will not be the sort of distraction that simple-minded Gee Dub/Big Dick wingnuts desperately hope that they would....
pssst.....
Montag, Jack,....
'Anonymous' at 9:26 wasn't me.
Anonymous was, it appears, well,
....anonymous.
.....that either didn't understand -- or more importantly didn't care -- climate legislation was effectively killed.
You mean that the wealth redistribution scam was effectively killed?
That's what Attaturk really means whenever he refers to this kind of legislation. Like for instance the Kyoto Accord which the Senate voted 95-0 against ratifying.
95 to 0 !!
As usual Atta and his friends are left on the outside looking in, moving more and more to the minority as per the extremists that they actually are.
" Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.
These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself."
Oh, of course it was you, O&A. Your style is recognizable by now. As is your dependency upon articles from James Inhofe's environment page, which is like quoting Jeffrey Dahmer on meal preparation..
Sen. James Inhofe, the senator from Koch Industries.
I can't decide who's the bigger moron. Inhofe for publishing stuff with clear industry bias, or you, for believing it all.
...again, the 9:36 comment wasn't mine.
...and it's very noticeable that Montag doesn't bother disputing the facts, namely that the majority of those among the scientic community don't support AGW theory. Much more important to Montag is that she apparently thinks I worship Inhofe and the like.
Also no mention of the Senate voting to reject the Kyoto scamming at the rate of 95 to 0.
And just to emphasize try to imagine that the Senate come to unanimous agreement over any other issue, perhaps that water is wet or that the sky is blue? Seriously, would they be unanimous?
But it was 95 to 0 to reject the Kyoto Accord !!
95 to 0
.
scientific community
blah bla bl b.
we are fucked unless some geek saves us cause humans are too stoopid to change and ain't giving up our fucking cars.
pansypoo
The MobilExxon rube doesn't give a rats ass. Fuck the planet! Milk the profits!
Post a Comment