Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.

Years ago I wrote “What if global warming zealots are wrong?”

Will they apologize?

Will they feel any shame for all the bile and nastiness they heaped on those who were merely skeptical?

In the past couple of years, the evidence in favor of manmade global climate change has not worked out so well for the zealots.

This past week saw what may be the beginning of the end for the whole global warming movement with the outting of hundreds of emails that allegedly detail countless examples of global warming advocates manipulating data and silencing dissent as they use the man-made global warming scare to secure lucrative grants and (like Al Gore) get involved in cap and trade ventures.

Here’s some links to follow.

We’ll start with the New York Times, that famously “neo con” journal:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=3&hp

The only defense I’ve seen so far is that because so many people accept that the earth is warming due to human produced CO2 that such a scandal will have limited effect.

And I agree with that.  The people who call and email me because they can’t figure out how to use their computer or at a get-together will call me in to settle some scientific dispute on everything from evolution to string theory suddenly are aghast that I’m skeptical on whether humans are having a measurable impact on the earth’s mean temperature.  Suddenly I’m either ignorant or brain-washed or both.

My position on human-caused global warming is much the same as my views on any religion. I’m skeptical and until I see conclusive evidence (and left-wing analysis is not evidence) I’m going to remain skeptical.

That doesn’t mean I don’t think we should reduce our footprint on the world. I absolutely agree we should be doing that.  The house I’m building has geothermal heating, solar panels, etc. I’m eagerly awaiting plug-in Hybrids.  But that’s a matter of personal principle just as I don’t need to believe in a magical super being to keep me from going on a killing spree.

I like people and I like seeing a diversity of opinion. 

I just don’t like it when people try to promote their opinions as fact and then try to get laws passed that take away our choices. I don’t like the government doing something “for our own good” unless it is a 100% thing and even then, I would not necessarily support it.

Here are some other helpful links on this latest blow up.

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2009/11/the_cru_hack_wh.html

http://i49.tinypic.com/mk8113.jpg

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html


Comments
on Nov 22, 2009

The AGW theory appears to be a house of cards, 50% based on, for all intents and purposes, one tree.  One tree.  In Siberia.

Settled science my ass.

on Nov 22, 2009

I'm pretty sure there was no scientist with Al Gore when he first went on TV and brought global warming to the public's attention.

on Nov 24, 2009

Its funny how democrats always do what they accuse others of. Like all that phony outrage over Halliburton's war profiteering. The whole time they've been working to triple and quadruple our energy rates while loading all their pockets. Including a major corporation, General Electric.

on Nov 24, 2009

Tony, I guess Halliburton didn't contribute enough to the DNC. They should have asked GE what the going rate is. Ops!

on Nov 25, 2009

I see the left is going hogwild trying to downplay this expose.   Yet not one of them can honestly deny that if the same type of emails were exposed about a religious organization or even the "deniers", they wouldn't be all over it.

on Nov 25, 2009

The scheming 'settled' scientists are the victims here, don'tcha know - the 'deniers' made them do it.

on Nov 25, 2009

 

I'm pretty sure there was no scientist with Al Gore when he first went on TV and brought global warming to the public's attention.

Actually the only serious debate Mr. Gore had was with Rush Limbaugh on Nightline years ago when he was a Senator. He lost that one to Mr. Limbaugh and has not had another since. I guess if you can't beat a college drop out how the heck could he think that he could beat someone with a current understanding of the subject.

I see the left is going hogwild trying to downplay this expose.

The only arguments I have heard were, 1. that these were private E-mails and we should not read them. 2. that they were stolen e-mails and we should not read them. 3. that they were taken out of context and we should not read them.

No one has said the e-mails were fake, or that they have been distorted in anyway. If I was running this lie I would have said a hacker got in and faked the e-mails. Oh well.

on Nov 26, 2009

Paladin: It seems that, once again, the Man Caused Global Climate Change crowd is throwing out any evidence that contradicts their paradigm.

on Nov 26, 2009

Paladin: It seems that, once again, the Man Caused Global Climate Change crowd is throwing out any evidence that contradicts their paradigm.

Yeah, that makes it hard to be considdered science. At least not what I was taught science was all about. Why would they destroy their reputations for a hoax?

on Nov 27, 2009

A terrific high-altitude perspective on this controversy.  Highly recommended reading.

on Nov 27, 2009

Climatologist Lord Christopher Munckton has offered to debate Gore on several occasions, all ignored or rebuffed.

This is, obviously, because Gore knows Munckton would wipe the floor with him and his undercooked theories. Gore supporters say that it's because the genius Gore just doesn't want to "lend credence" to the GW skeptic's positions.

Science was never meant to be based in "consensus".

Meta
Views
» 788
Comments
» 11
Category
Sponsored Links