Spinsters and Shysters Dressed as “Do-Gooders” (Guest Voice)
Spinsters and Shysters Dressed as “Do-Gooders”
By Floyd and Mary Beth Brown
Just like in the Wizard of Oz, the curtain was torn back and leading proponents of anthropogenic (people-caused) global warming have been caught lying
Called Climategate, the scandal exposes the global warming shysters who are conning the public into a massive restructuring of the global economy, while attempting to silence any dissent. But don’t expect to see this in our mainstream media, because they are the spinsters who promote this manipulation of data and propaganda.
It all began when an anonymous person hacked into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit in England, releasing 61 megabytes of confidential files, including 1079 e-mails and 72 documents onto the Internet. These files are a wealth of information.
The most damning indictment of proponents of global warming hysteria is a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. The e-mails even included fantasies of violence against those who question anthropogenic global warming. These e-mails show disturbing patterns of “conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more,” says Australian Sun’s Andrew Bolt.
Man-made global warming hysteria has long been fueled by people using junk science, fear and hyperbole to support an agenda that they personally profit from. As they attempt to lead the world into a green revolution, these propagandists are hiding the truth that the average global temperature has fallen since 1998.
The leading profiteering propagandist is Al Gore. After losing the presidential election in 2000, Al Gore became the leader of the hysteria movement. However, this “Eco-Prophet” has hidden a few inconvenient truths of his own. He just happens to be involved with a venture capital firm that has invested approximately a billion dollars in green companies that stand to make a bundle if Cap-and-Trade becomes law.
Reports state that Gore’s net worth now stands at $100 Million, when it was $2 million when he left politics. He’s laughing all the way to the bank.
Al Gore has a history of playing loose with the facts.
Recently on TV, while discussing geothermal energy, Al Gore made the outrageous claim that “the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees.” However, the actual temperature here on earth is between 5,000 and 9,000 degrees. This is a gaffe that if Sarah Palin had made, the media would ridicule as her stupid.
Speaking of hypocrisy, Al Gore is a living embodiment of it. As he lectures the world on energy use, and lobbies Congress to regulate productive American companies out of business, Gore consumes more than twenty times more energy than the average American, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. This doesn’t count the energy consumption of his jet.
Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” is full of instances where he plays loose with the facts. A 2007 British court ruled that Gore’s film has nine significant refutable errors. These are examples of Gore’s scare tactics to induce the public to take radical action (to his financial benefit).
Not only is Gore prone to hyperbole, hypocrisy and blatant distortions, he is also a bully. Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT wrote about scientists being “in the crosshairs” of Gore, who “tried to bully” them into changing “their views and supporting his climate alarmism.” Lindzen also refers to a failed Gore effort to “enlist Ted Koppel (then a TV host) in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists.”
When one side tries to shut another side out of the debate, it is typically because they feel their arguments won’t stand up to scrutiny.
These propagandists use various tactics. A favorite is to make people feel guilty if they don’t jump on the “green” bandwagon, and those who do are praised for helping the environment.
With the Copenhagen meetings, expect to see “green” propaganda exponentially increasing. Open your eyes to these manipulators of data and people, who while acting like do-gooders, see great (green as in money) gain.
©2009 Floyd and Mary Beth Brown. The Browns are bestselling authors and speakers. Together they write a national weekly column distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.
Guest Voice posts do not necessarily reflect the opinion of TMV or its many writers.
25 Responses to “Spinsters and Shysters Dressed as “Do-Gooders” (Guest Voice)”
The Spinsters and Shysters in this article are it's authors… Floyd and Mary Beth Brown
Predictably there are plenty of people (like the Brown's) who will be spinning the bejesus out of the email hack, with zero regard for what any of it really means, since they are also the same people who were active denialists well before the hack. The wiser course is to withhold judgement until more of this has been thrashed out in scientific circles, not amateur circles or by ideologues concern trolling for good science.
Brown is famous for being a master propagandist. He is exploiting the minor disagreements between climate researchers (Taste Great! Less Filling!) and glossing over the near unanimous consensus about the need to pull back from the tipping point. They are counting on the ignorance of the average American in regards to science and research methods, “That guy said trick, did you see that? He's trying to TRICK you!!” in order save his patrons some (big) money.
No kidding! I can't believe the ignorance of these people and the gall at calling others propagandists. They have to know how wrong they are and they have to be doing it on purpose. I can not believe that they would embarrass themselves like this otherwise.
“Shysters” is among my favorite words. The rest of the piece pretty much sucks eggs.
I think the Browns need to shut up and put up. When they buy tracks of land at or just above sea level, then I'll believe their confidence in their position. Until then it's just spin spin spin..
Actually that is a wonderful point. When the left gets an issue and begins to run with it they are often told to put their money where their mouth is and invest in it. On the GW issue those that have are now pointed to as how it is actually just a money making scheme but of course the same critics would have told them to invest or they did not care if they had not invested. So in this case maybe the deniers need to buy up all the ocean front property or better yet start home insurance companies and sell policies to coastal residence at rates that do not reflect the GW threat in any way. In that case they would be putting their money where their mouth is and proving with their investment just how much they believed in their ideas.
Outright lies and distortions by the Left are simple errors and misrepresentations by their enemies; their corruption and duplicity is wise investing.
George Orwell and Ayn Rand are prophets of the 20th century.
Um first until the science is re-investigated we have nothing to cover up, we have instead people that swore before climategate that GW was real saying its real and people that claimed before climategate that GW was a fantasy still saying its a fantasy. So nothing has actually changed except that the science now needs to be re-investigated. I think this is a wonderful thing since now we will have to re-investigate the science which is going to be more open now for obvious reasons but I doubt that those that think it a fantasy will change their views though the GW scientists might depending on the data but thats the difference between scientist's and activists isn't it? Interesting choice of literary figures though, Orwell who hated American capitalism so much that he coined the term “Cannibal capitalism” to describe it and Rand who hated workers and the poor and had love only for owners and those with capitol. If you put those two in a room I doubt either would have come out alive. You do know that Orwell was an avid leftist right?
I agree that some good might well come of this, specifically more openess and more examination of records, data, etc. The idea that AGW is now a bust simply because some human foibles have been revealed in emails is either incredibly naive or incredibly disingenuous. The research will probably continue at a greater pace than ever now and with greater scrutiny as well. Is that a bad thing? Somehow I suspect it won't sit well with the folks who seem to wish the problem would just magically go away. I blame Al Gore.
I hope it goes away, I think most humans on the planet wish it would but of course wishing and saying it over and over does not make it so. Sadly in such cases people like you need to bring them back to reality and hope they will still listen. And here we thought Darwin solved that whole “questioning science” thing, hold it they say he is full of it as well? This is what happens when we fail to properly teach math and science.
They think the anonymous source that hacked into East Anglia’s servers was, drum roll please, the Russian Secret Service. The Russian's are climate deniers.
Is “You are known by the company you keep” still considered to be true?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/…
“I think most humans on the planet wish it would but of course wishing and saying it over and over does not make it so.”
Ain't it the truth. As my dear departed grandpa would say, “Wish in one hand, sh*t in the other, kid. See which fills up first.”
There usually is more than one side to any story. Here is another side from a NYT Editorial today (posted on another thread)
No one is saying or should be saying global warming is not real. What is in question, and what has been tried to a great extent to be suppressed, is any questioning of the severity and the causes. Additionally, there is strong evidence that the warming trend has at least temporarily halted or possibly reversed, and not a single one of the current “consensus accepted” global warming theories can explain that.
These emails go to the heart of those issues. The show that the current debate is a sham, and any attempts at true scientific skepticism and data examination are being suppressed.
That in and of itself calls the goals of the proponents of massive global changes in human activity into question. Add to that the fact that due to the same movement is being run by those who stand to profit enormously in personal wealth, then anybody with any sense of concern for the integrity of the scientific method should be appalled and concerned.
Of course you realize the data and science that will have to be re-investigated involves the accuracy of measuring temperatures from 1961 to today using tree rings. I don't know if you are aware that over that entire time period we have had other methods of measuring temperature. An example are instruments called thermometers which are considered even more accurate that tree rings.
These instruments show without a doubt that global wide climate change is a fact.
Thank you for the clarification. To be honest the only dog I have in this race is science and the truth so I am sorry I misunderstood as I have been trying to concentrate on deniers that I do disagree with instead of critics which I agree with on many points. Personally I am of two minds, first its not as extreme as some would have us think but is happening and needs to be addressed which seems to be the same area you are coming from or it is that extreme maybe even worse than we know in which case the only answer to the problem I see is to find technology or develop technology to reverse it. I wish I could “fan” climategate because though it has given fuel to deniers it is a gift to critics and all who want to know the truth. Now it will be more transparent and open and less politicized which of course should have been the case all along. In the end I think it will split the deniers from the critics and marginalize those that deserve it(I am a jerk when it comes to denying science).
Yes I do which is why I think opening the science will do nothing but good as it will in my opinion leave the deniers out in the cold much as Darwinisim and all other major scientific breakthroughs have.
TheMagicalSkyFather -
My take on it is a few-fold.
First, global climate variations run the gamut of very short term (think El Nino-like events) to 25K – 250K year periodicity events (perhaps there are even longer ones as well). The time-frame and quality of data collected and analyzed is so unlikely to allow for accurate assessments of long or even medium term global events as to be almost negligible, yet proponents act as if it had 100% certainty. Anytime a group, even a large group, of scientists say the debate is over, they know something for 100% certainty, and no further evaluation of their conclusions is warranted, I get real skeptical real quick.
Second, no current climate model that does exist, even if the data WAS sufficient, takes into account more than about 4 primary and up to 6 or so secondary factors. The theories are not mature enough, and the programs and computer simulations cannot handle larger numbers of variable factors. That, too, is extremely problematic. As we are dealing with a chaotic system, the more initial unknown variables, the quicker even the predictions that can be made encounter their limitations. And ALL current theories either ignore or make as constant not just secondary factors, but primary factors.
Third, when questioning the accepted status quo consensus does not mark you as quirky or skeptical, or even just eccentric, but rather costs you your position in the scientific community and a general shunning, and charges of actual evil and malice, then that is another indication to me that politics and group-think are the order of the day rather than scientific principles.
Finally, when the absolutely only way to get any research funding is to kowtow to the orthodoxy opinion, then the scientific method and the rules of data impartiality and reproducibility as the cornerstones of accuraccy are completely and utterly lost.
And with that, the trust of laymen in science and scientists is severely damaged, which is in some ways the worst of the fallout of 'Climategate'.
“Outright lies and distortions by the Left”
… are in flower, currently. Not surprising.
“the trust of laymen in science and scientists is severely damaged”
More pollution of science by leftist politics, exposed (though the fellow travelers try to suppress it).
* * *
” Add to that the fact that due to the same movement being run by those who stand to profit enormously in personal wealth”
That's just adding insult and (moral) injurity to the greater general insult and (economic and moral) injury not merely of the PC-perverted science, but the essentially-1960s-recycled “solutions” to the “problem.”
Same shit, different “disaster” we “must” avert.
“What is in question, and what has been tried to a great extent to be suppressed, is any questioning of the severity and the causes.”
Then there is the question of the drastic to radical and extreme measures that are being sought, which in no way logically follow from the reality or what is being claimed is happening or what we “are” doing, and which are obviously harmful, and perverse that they are actually proposed or sought.
merkin
“I don't know if you are aware that over that entire time period we have had other methods of measuring temperature. An example are instruments called thermometers which are considered even more accurate that tree rings.”
Thank you for pointing out the obvious. Current orthodoxy relies on the paleo record to justify that tempatures in the past were never as warm as they are now, however, starting in 1960, these paleo records somehow got all cock-eyed and showed downturns when instruments showed temps rising.
You now have a problem, if the paleo record shows lower temps in 1960, then the paleo record must be re-evaluated to proxy temps must be increased accordingly. Doing that, the AGW premise of all-time high temps crumbles. I won't even go into the manipulation performed that made the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming period “disappear” from the paleo record.
Conversely, your thermometers measure temps, but they can't take into account the urban heat sinks that have grown up around them since 1850. Yes, I know there are algorithms employed to compensate for heat sinks, but the bias employed toward higher temps has been documented several times.
The problem you have is simple, past temps have been reduced and present temps inflated. Where the science in that?
[...] :: Spinsters and Shysters Dressed as “Do-Gooders” (Guest Voice) [...]
merkin
“. I don't know if you are aware that over that entire time period we have had other methods of measuring temperature. An example are instruments called thermometers which are considered even more accurate that tree rings.”
Thanks for your condescending attitude.
Thanks also for pointing out the obvious problem you have highlighted.
The Paleo-climate record in question has been relied upon by the IPCC since its first report to show that past temperatures have never been as high as they are today. Unfortunately, all three series show a decided downturn in temperatures starting in about 1960.
If the proxy data shows a divergence from actual temps as great as the measured incresed rise, doesn't good science requires one to conclude that the proxy record is inaccurate with a cooler bias?
Being cooler means the spike seen in the past years now fits within the natural variance of temperature readings or shows a minuscule rise compared to the devastating spike these guys would have you believe.
As to instrument readings, you no doubt know that ground station temps are effected by urban heat sink effect, and all raw data is run against an algorithm designed to adjust for the phenomena. Of the US ground stations used by NOAA to record temps, merely 10% follow the strict rules defined by that organization as to placement free of contaminating heat sources. The temperature bias in the current adjustments by “smoothing” accounts for a .5 degree upward bias.
Past temps are shown as cooler and present temps are shown as warmer. Where is the science in that?
By all means, explain away these problems, but do so with a little less condescension.