Global Warming Fraud and the Future of Science

American Thinker ^ | November 29, 2009 | J.R. Dunn

[neverdem]

The East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) revelations come as no real surprise to anyone who has closely followed the global-warming saga. The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) thesis, to give it its semi-official name, is no stranger to fraud. It would be no real exaggeration to state that it was fertilized with fraud, marinated in fraud, stewed in fraud, and at last served up to the world as prime grade-A fraud with nice side orders of fakery and disingenuousness. Damning as they may be, the CRU e-mails are merely the climactic element in an exhaustively long line.

A short tour of previous AGW highlights would include:

The Y2K Glitch.  This episode involved the NASA/GISS team led by James Hansen, possibly the most fanatical and unrelenting of all warmists, a man who makes Al Gore look like a skeptic. (Among other things, Hansen has demanded that warming "deniers" be tried for "crimes against humanity".)  While examining a series of NASA temperature graphs, Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, himself not so much a skeptic as an anti-warming Van Helsing, uncovered a discontinuity occurring in January 2000 that raised temperatures gathered over widespread areas by 1-2 degrees Fahrenheit. McIntyre had no easy time of it, since Hansen refused to reveal what algorithm he'd used to process the data, forcing McIntyre to perform some very abstruse calculations to figure it out.

Once notified, Hansen's team promised to correct the error, stating that it was an "oversight". When the corrected figures were at last released, they rocked the church of warming from bingo hall to steeple. Vanished was the claim that the past few years were "the warmest on record". Now 1934 now took precedence. A full half of the top ten warmest years occurred before WW II, well prior to any massive CO2 buildup.

No explanation has ever been offered. We have a Y2K glitch that behaves like no other computer glitch ever encountered, uniformly affecting a large number of sources distributed almost nationwide. Although the incident trashed all recent data and raised uncomfortable questions about the warming thesis as a whole, NASA itself made no effort at an investigation or inquiry. All that we're ever going to hear is "oversight". I guess that's how they do things at NASA/GISS.

The Arctic Ice Melt. We've been informed for the better part of a decade that Arctic ice was melting at an unprecedented rate, and that the North Pole would be ice-free in twenty, thirty, or forty years, depending in the hysteria level of the media platform in question. In truth, ice thinning was due to a cyclical weather pattern in which winds blow ice floes south into warmer water. Everybody involved knew that this cycle occurred, everyone had seen it happen previously time out of mind. But it was too good an opportunity to pass up. Worse yet, when the weather returned to its normal pattern two years ago, large numbers of scientists put in considerable effort to suggest that the "new" ice was thinner than usual and would vanish in a flash as soon as the temperatures went back up. The media went along with the joke. The Germans have a phrase to cover such eventualities: this crew should be stripped of their trade. (Several expeditions setting out for the Pole to "call attention" to the coming Arctic catastrophe had to stop short due to icy conditions. In one case, both women involved suffered serious frostbite.)   

The Poor Polar Bears. Closely related is the saga of the polar bears, staring extinction in the face due to warming while, somewhere beyond the aurora, Gaia weeps bitter tears. This was evidently inspired by a single photograph (you've seen it -- the entire world has at this point) of a woebegone polar bear crouched on a melting iceberg. That bear had to be sulking over allowing a nice juicy seal to escape, because it was in no danger. Out of the twenty major polar bear populations only two are known to be decreasing. Estimates of bear population (there are no exact figures) have increased over the past forty years, from 17,000 to19,000 to the current number of 22,000 to 27,000. The bears are becoming pests in municipalities such as Churchill and Point Barrow. (As clearly shown here.)  Despite all this, last year the bear was put on the U.S. "endangered" list.

The Hockey Stick That Wasn't. The "hockey stick" is a nickname for a chart prepared by Michael Mann, a University of Pennsylvania professor and leading warmist. The chart purports to show temperature levels for the past millennium, and consists of a straight line until it reaches the late 20^th century, when it suddenly shoots upward, creating the "hockey stick" profile. This chart was a major feature of International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports on global warming and is a commonly-used media graphic.

This chart creates immediate doubt in anyone knowledgeable about the climate of the past millennium, which more resembles a roller coaster than a straight line. It developed -- in yet another impressive McIntyre takedown, this time with an assist from Ross McKitrick -- that Mann was utilizing an algorithm that would produce hockey sticks if you fed it telephone numbers. (Mann is the "Mike" mentioned in the CRU e-mails, and this is one of his "tricks".) Despite this disclosure, Mann has never withdrawn the chart, offered an explanation, or made a correction. The chart remains an accepted piece of evidence among warmists.

Tree-Ring Circus. Due to the fact that direct temperature measures for past epochs are lacking, climatologists utilize "proxy measures", such as tree rings, glacial moraines, and lake sediments. Tree rings have played an important part in the warming controversy, as evidence backing the claim that temperatures have been consistently lower worldwide until recently. A crucial series of measurements, utilized by Mann among others, involves trees located on the Yamal peninsula in Siberia. How many trees were measured, you ask? A hundred? A thousand? Ten thousand?

The answer is twelve. A number perfectly adequate to trigger international panic, overthrow the capitalist system, establish a Green totalitarianism, and completely turn Western culture on its head.

But it turns out that further measurements were in fact made in the area, involving at least thirty-four other trees. And when this data is added to the original twelve, then the warming evidence disappears into the same branch of the Twilight Zone as the blade of Mann's hockey stick. Another "oversight", you understand.

We could go on to mention the automated U.S. weather stations chronicled by the tireless Anthony Watts, which were conscientiously placed next to air-con vents, atop sewage plants, in parking lots, and in one case, in a swamp (as many as 90% may be giving spurious high readings). The glaciers that are vanishing worldwide except where they aren't. The endless papers demonstrating that the coral reefs, along with various birds, animals, insects, and plants, are facing extinction even though no warming whatsoever has occurred for twelve years. (And in the thirty years before that, the total rise was 1.25 degrees Fahrenheit, easily within normal variation.) Powerful stuff, this warming -- it maims and destroys even when it's not happening.  

It's within this context that the East Anglia e-mails must be judged. The vanishingly small number of  legacy media writers who are paying attention behave as if the messages comprise some kind of puzzling anomaly, with no relation to anything that came before. In truth, they stand as the internal memos from the East Anglia branch of the Nigerian National Bank, which can save us from the horrors of global warming after payment of a small up-front fee.

There is always a deeper level to the damage caused by fraud. It strains social relationships, generates cynicism, and debases standing institutions. What has suffered the most damage from AGW is faith in the scientific method, the basic set of procedures -- it could be called an algorithm -- governing scientific investigation. These procedures embody simplicity itself: you examine a phenomenon. You gather data. You construct a hypothesis to explain that phenomenon. And then...

Well, first, let's cover what you don't do.

• You don't manipulate data. (As CRU chief scientist Phil Jones stated he was doing in the now-famous "Mike's trick" e-mail, not to mention throughout the now-famous source code.)

• You don't fabricate data. (As one CRU scientist did while compiling weather-station data. Running into problems, he states, "I can make it up. So I did." He adds an evil smiley face. This e-mail has gone under radar up until now. It can be found in the comments on James Delingpole's blog.

• You don't deny data to other investigators. (As Hansen, Jones, and, it appears, everybody else in the warming community has done at one time or another.)

• You don't destroy evidence. (As the members of the CRU did following a Freedom of Information request.)

• You don't bury contradictory data. (As Jones and several colleagues did in an attempt to undercut the impact of the Medieval Warming Period.)

• You don't secretly manipulate the argument from behind the scenes. (As the CRU staff did with the website Realclimate.org., screening comments to allow only those that supported the warming thesis.)

• You don't secretly undercut your critics. (As Mann advised the CRU to do concerning the scientific journal, Climate Researh: "I think we have to stop considering ‘Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.")

• You don't try to get a journal editor critical of your case fired. (As the CRU staff evidently succeeded in doing with an editor for Geophysical Research Letters.)

What you do, if you are a serious scientist operating according to the established method, is attempt to falsify your hypothesis. Test it to destruction; carry out serious attacks on its weakest points to see if they hold up. If they do -- and the vast majority of hypotheses suffer the indignity embodied in a phrase attributed variously to Thomas Huxley and Lord Kelvin: "a beautiful theory slain by an ugly fact" -- then you have a theory that can be published, and tested, and verified by other scientists. If you don't, you throw it out.

None of this, amidst all the chicanery, fabrications, and manipulations, appears to have been done by anyone active in global warming research, the CRU least of all. From which point we are forced to conclude that AGW is not science, and that any "consensus" that can drawn from it is a consensus of fraud. 

(The late-breaking revelations of temperature manipulations at New Zealand's NiWA institute   -- another one of Mike's tricks? -- merely underlines the lesson of CRU. Now that the dam has busted, we'll be hearing dozens of stories like this over the weeks and months to come.)

The West is a technological society. Science is as responsible for making us what we have become as any other factor, including the democratic system of government. The two are in fact complementary, each supporting and encouraging the other across the decades since this country was established. (And yes, I am aware that Britain and Germany were both centers of scientific progress, both of them nations liberalized by the example of the United States. Even the utterly authoritarian Bismarck was forced to heed the voice of the people despite his inclination to do anything but.)

The technology developed from scientific research has created a world that would be unrecognizable to our forebears of even a century ago. Technology has transformed diet, health, communications, and transportation. It has doubled lifespans in advanced countries. Prior to the modern epoch, few ever caught a glimpse of the world past their own farming fields. India, China, and Africa were wild myths, the Pacific and Antarctica utterly unknown, the planets and stars merely pretty lights in the sky. Technology opened the world, not just for everyday men and women, but for invalids, the disabled, and the subnormal, who once lived lives of almost incomprehensible deprivation. Technology was a crucial factor in the dissolution of the ancient empires, the humbling of the aristocracies.

As Paul Johnson has pointed out, a technological breakout appeared imminent at a number of points in the past millennium. Consider the anonymous Hussite engineer of the 15^th century who left a notebook even more breathtaking than that of Leonardo, or the revolutionary English Levelers of the 17^th century who dreamed of flying machines and factories. If a breakout had occurred at those times, the consequences would have been unimaginable. But the Hussites were destroyed by the German princes, the Levelers by the reestablishment of the English crown. It required the birth of a true democratic republic in the late 18^th century to provide the setting for a serious scientific-technical takeoff, one that after 200 years has brought us to where we stand today, gazing out at the galaxies beyond the galaxies with the secret of life itself within reach.

It is this, and no less, that scientific fraud threatens. This is no trivial matter; it involves one of the basic elements of modern Western life. When scientific figures lie, they lie to all of us. If they foment serious distrust of the scientific endeavor -- as they are doing -- they are creating a schism in the heart of our culture, a wound that in the long run could prove even more deadly than the Jihadi terrorists.

Such failings are not relegated only to climatology. With the apparent success of the climate hustlers, it has infected all areas of research. Over the past decade, stem-cell studies have proven a hotbed of fraud. Recall Dr. Hwang Woo Suk, the South Korean biologist who claimed to have cloned various higher animals and isolated new stem cell lines, to worldwide applause. Suk was discovered to have faked all his research, prompting the South Korean government to ban him from taking part in any further work. Nor was he alone. Researchers throughout the field have been caught fabricating and manipulating data, and at least one large biotech company has developed the habit of announcing grand breakthroughs to goose its stock prices.

A number of factors are responsible, among them the grant-making process, which rewards extravagant claims and demands matching results, and the superstar factor, in which media adulation creates a sense of intellectual arrogance -- as in the case of Dr. Suk -- unmatched since Galileo's heyday. But the major problem lies in politics, specifically as involves ideology.

In both major recent cases of fraud, science had become entwined and infected with ideology to a point where its very nature had been transformed. It was no longer science in the classic mold, boldly asking basic questions without fear or favor. It had become an ideological tool, carrying out only such research as met with the approval of political elites. Stem-cell research had become enmeshed with the abortion question. Embryonic stem cells, obtained by "processing" aborted babies, received the lion's share of funding and attention despite its showing no potential whatsoever. Adult stem cells, obtainable from bone marrow, skin cells, or virtually any other part of the body, were shunted aside despite extraordinarily promising research results. This bias permeated the entire field and distorted all perceptions of it -- one of the reasons Dr. Suk was so wildly overpraised was his willingness to attack Pres. George W. Bush for limiting embryonic stem-cell exploitation.

The climatology story is little different. Environmentalist Greens needed a threat, one that menaced not only technological civilization but life on earth itself. They had promoted an endless parade of such threats since the 1960s -- overpopulation, pollution, runaway nuclear power, and global cooling -- only to see them shrivel like popped balloons. They required a menace that was overwhelming, long-term, and not easily disproven. With warming, the climatologists gave them one. In exchange for sky-high funding, millennial scientists, the heirs of Bacon, Copernicus, and Einstein, men who bled and suffered for the sake of their work, continually inflated the nature and extent of the CO2 threat, using, as we now know, the sleaziest methods available. The result has been complete intellectual degradation. 

Scientists were once among the most trusted figures in Western public life, similar to bankers, priests, and doctors, but in a real sense standing above them all. Scientists were honored as truth-tellers, aware that their reputation for veracity and seriousness was their only real asset. And while exceptions existed (read the story of Blondlot and his N-rays,   for one example), the public took them at their own valuation.

That is ended, one with the scholastic monasteries and the academy at Athens. Scientists today are well on their way to becoming an amalgam of the cheap politician and the three-card monte dealer. They are viewed by the less educated as a privileged class making alarming and impudent claims for their own benefit. The better informed find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of being unable to defend something we once admired.

The next set of questions in physics cannot be answered without equipment costing billions at the very least, and possibly much more. Will a disbelieving public pay for that? We are facing serious dilemmas concerning breakthroughs in biology, not only in stem-cell technology but also in neurology and synthetic biology, breakthroughs that threaten to distort the very nature of humanity itself. Should we leave the solutions up to people who want us to pick a card, any card?

The collaboration between science and democracy is one of the great achievements of human history. It is now threatened by the behavior of people at the very heart of that collaboration. If it is destroyed, something of unparalleled value will have vanished, something that will be nearly impossible to replace. If the Western world wishes to continue its magnificent upward journey, we will have to save science from itself. An errant and corrupt climatology is the place to start.

[JasonC]

Has anyone else noticed that it is a bit strange that world CO2 levels are measured in Hawaii, on top of a volcano?

lol...

[betty boop]

What you do, if you are a serious scientist operating according to the established method, is attempt to falsify your hypothesis. Test it to destruction; carry out serious attacks on its weakest points to see if they hold up. If they do -- and the vast majority of hypotheses suffer the indignity embodied in a phrase attributed variously to Thomas Huxley and Lord Kelvin: "a beautiful theory slain by an ugly fact" -- then you have a theory that can be published, and tested, and verified by other scientists. If you don't, you throw it out.

None of this, amidst all the chicanery, fabrications, and manipulations, appears to have been done by anyone active in global warming research, the CRU least of all. From which point we are forced to conclude that AGW is not science, and that any "consensus" that can drawn from it is a consensus of fraud.

We aren't used to thinking of science as a moral enterprise. But if it isn't that, then it isn't science. It's "sanctified" chicanery.

Great article, neverdem! Thank you so very much for posting it!

[CottShop]

[[What you do, if you are a serious scientist operating according to the established method, is attempt to falsify your hypothesis. Test it to destruction; carry out serious attacks on its weakest points to see if they hold up.]]

Not anymore- You simply propose a hypothesis, and then attack ANYONE that doesn’t beleive you- prevent them from publishign in peer reveiw magazines, DENY that you’re preventing them from publishing, and manipulate data and hide data that doesn’t support the theory- Apparently this is how sceicne began to be run startign around 150 years ago or so- right aroudn the time the peer review system became nothign more than a big boys club, where dissenting opinions need not apply

[tacticalogic]

We aren't used to thinking of science as a moral enterprise. But if it isn't that, then it isn't science. It's "sanctified" chicanery.

The moral failure seems to be the abandonment of professional ethics. If carbon rationing can be effected, the people who control the rationing are going to get rich.

[Alamo-Girl]

We aren't used to thinking of science as a moral enterprise. But if it isn't that, then it isn't science. It's "sanctified" chicanery.

So very true, dearest sister in Christ!

This episode should be a wake-up call to the science community and peer reviewed journals. In ordinary business, this kind of behavior would be called "fraud" and the actors would be prosecuted in civil or criminal courts of law.

[TXnMA]

Below (verbatim, with HTML markups intact) is a comment I made on another FR thread on global warming:

---

"...director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change..."

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Braaaaacckkkk!!!! (Alert klaxon)

There is a title with a foregone conclusion!

It should be something like,

Tyndall Centre for Climate Study..."

... or "Measurement" or "Analysis", etc...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Once an "investigator" (or organization, or movement -- or half the whole world -- gets on a mission to "PROVE" something, (rather than search for unadulterated evidence to refine current understanding) they cease to be scientists (or theologists)-- or, even, truthful...

---

And, by "truthful", I include being "truthful" to themselves...

I have precisely the same objection to the "GoreBull Warmists" who are twisting facts to PROVE that humans are destroying Earth as I do to the "YEC" proponents who are out to "PROVE" that their adherence to Ussher's [mis]interpretation of Genesis outweighs all the true scientific observation that has ever been done.

IMHO, aside from mathematics or trial law, the concept of "PROOF" has no place in honest, rational discourse.

---

(BB & A-G, can you recall the last time one of us claimed we had "PROOF" -- of anything?)

[betty boop]

The moral failure seems to be the abandonment of professional ethics.

Seems to be? That's putting it mildly, tacticalogic! But you're absolutely right — "If carbon rationing can be effected, the people who control the rationing are going to get rich" — on the basis of thoroughly corrupt science. This is not even to mention the vast transformation of the world order that the upcoming global warming summit in Copenhagen envisions, which is entirely justified on the basis of this corrupt science.

This is not about science; it's all about money, prestige, influence, and — finally — POWER (political and financial). The AGW boosters propound a global wealth transfer from rich to poor nations, and a complete restructuring of the world economy under an unaccountable international bureaucracy. Again, all this justified on the basis of this crappy AGW "science."

This is breathtakingly scandalous!!!

Not only is science a moral enterprise; but if anybody doubted that it is (as Niels Bohr insisted) a public enterprise as well, this case should be the wake-up call.

An interesting question is why is science abandoning its "professional ethics?" Especially since it should be obvious that if science turns its back on ethical criteria, it undermines its own method and instantly ceases to be science.

[CottShop]

[[This is not even to mention the vast transformation of the world order that the upcoming global warming summit in Copenhagen envisions, which is entirely justified on the basis of this corrupt science. ]]

And that is the maddening part of this whole issue- We have to sit back and watch world leaders extort $$ from everyone based on nothign but a lie- a lie that was recently exposed as such- but which these leaders care nothign about. Copenhagen, by all rights, should be indefinately postponed pending further ‘research’ into the issue at the very least, but nope- they’re going right ahead with this as though the lie about man’s suppsoed involvement in climate change is still hidden from the public- which of course, it isn’t.

[[An interesting question is why is science abandoning its “professional ethics?”]]

The same reason the president and the far left are abandoning their duty to prefessional ethics- because it wasn’t workign for them, plain and simple- the president and the far left aren’t even being coy about their desire to trample on our constitutional rights anymore- aren’t even tryign to hide their agenda anymore- they are throwing it right in our faces and daring us to take a stand against them

[[This is breathtakingly scandalous!!!]]

Aint it though? And the worst part about it is we can do absolutely nothign to stop it- IF they won’t even recognize that they’ve been exposed as liars and fraudsters, and are continuing along as though nothign ever happened to expose them, then we, and the TRUTH, doesn’t stand a chance agaisnt these thugs who simply wish to redistribute wealth by force- Ethics be damned!

[TXnMA]

"...it should be obvious that if science turns its back on ethical criteria, it undermines its own method and instantly ceases to be science.

Exactly!!!

Those who do not have that "love of discovery" that "drives" a true scientist simply cannot comprehend how destructive the mere concept of "foregone conclusion that must be 'proven'" is to the bedrock foundation of the scientific endeavour.

As a "retired" scientist, I still keep a stereomicroscope here on my desk (and a differential interference metallurgical microscope nearby) -- simply because my mind will not allow me to bypass a question that can be answered via direct observation.

True science is not a "business" -- it is an inescapable "lifelong personal passion for knowledge"!

~~~~~~~~

Without ethics and passion for truth, "science" is not "dead" -- it is not "science" at all!

[betty boop]

(BB & A-G, can you recall the last time one of us claimed we had "PROOF" — of anything?)

Goodness, you never heard that word coming out of my mouth! I strongly doubt my dearest sister in Christ, Alamo-Girl, ever uttered the word "proof" either, except to note that "proof" is a word that pertains to the domain of logic/mathematics. Certainly I have never heard it from you, TXnMA!

Anyhoot, human beings living their lives are not mathematical objects. In the sphere of human life and action, there are never any "proofs"; moreover there is never perfect certainty about anything.

"Proofs" are only available where deductive methods are employed. Deductive reasoning starts from a general case assumed to be true, and moves down to specific instances, which are then tested against it. But the scientific method is just the reverse, inductive: One starts with the specific instances (evidence), and then tries to move to the general case (what the evidence shows).

I totally agree with you here:

Once an "investigator" (or organization, or movement — or half the whole world — gets on a mission to "PROVE" something, (rather than search for unadulterated evidence to refine current understanding) they cease to be scientists (or theologists) — or, even, truthful....

And that's a FACT!

Thanks ever so much for your wonderful insights, TXnMA, for pointing us to the "loaded language" involved in the Tyndall Center's self-description — and how the language itself helps to shape the public debate towards a preconceived conclusion.

[TXnMA]

And, if anyone wants to claim that the "AGW CO₂ lie" is harmless, consider this:

Even the Supreme Court of the USA has been so misled that it has issued an opinion that, on its face, is scandalously wrong!

[CottShop]

Exactly, the courts (and yes, even the supreme court) are no longer objective, but rather are now political legislators with hte power to enforce laws based o ntheir subjective interpretations- Sandra Day O’Connor’s opinion about ‘seperation of Church and state’ proved that she is NOT fit to sit hte bench, showign that she is more concerned abotu agenda than she is about upholding her sworn duty to objectively rule. She legislated sentiments concerning ‘seperation of church and state’ by claiming anyone in government who observes religion in public is trying to ‘force or coerce’ others to do so as well- to ‘establish a religion to the exclusion of other religions’ which oif course is an assinine claim

The supreme court has been scandalous for a great many years now- and this global warmign issue will prove to be just an ongoing perversion of the judicial system.

Judge Jones also proved his unnabashed bias when he wrote the brief against ID in the dover trial- proving conclusively that he wasm ore interested in agenda than he is abotu justice and truth- His brief/opinion was a travesty of justice, which of course the left immediately praised and called ‘brilliant’- but anyoen with an iota of objectivity and commojn sense can see he severely overstepped his authority and duty to objectivity by stating the assinine biased crap that he did- and just for hte record, his opinion was almost a carbon copy of the ACLU’s ‘opinion’ on the ruling- prewritten, just wating for the ‘verdict’ (lynching)

[betty boop]

And the worst part about it is we can do absolutely nothing to stop it....

Bite your tongue, dear brother in Christ! What is it with all this "doom-saying?"

Here's the scenario I envision, FWIW: The Big 0 goes to Copenhagen, to "universal" fawning applause as a known long-time spear-carrier for the cause of AGW. He is, of course, by now the President of the United States.

The gurus and their acolytes then conduct their obligatory Seance, and lo! and behold! They issue forth their Sacred Salvational Document!!! That will literally save the human race from itself!!! And lead to peace and love and prosperity and all kinds of goodies for the human race forever more — the dawning of the New [manmade] Heaven on Earth!!! [Just trust us.]

Then Our Hero returns with Caesar's laurels to his fawning Left Progressive audience here, including whoever else The Big 0 has conned into thinking he is a "great man" [or at least a politically useful one].

He has declared: YES!!! to The Sacred Document!!! He is its Messiah in America! Hallelujah!!!

Somebody please pass me a barf bag.

Alternatively: This situation would be absolutely hilarious, were it not so deadly serious — and dangerous.

Fact is, Copenhagen couldn't become American law just on The Big 0's say-so. His treaty power is limited by the "advice and consent" role of the Senate. (This is just one of the "pesky ways" the federal Constitution throws up barriers to his ambition. I expect he just hasn't quite figured out how to get around this one yet.... )

So my dear friends, the action moves to the Senate. They have the Constitutional warrant to "advise and consent" on presidential treaty-making powers. And it takes 67 senators to concur before any treaty can become American law.

The good news is: the Senate refused to ratify the Kyoto Treaty. Since their first refusal, they could have changed their mind at any time, and brought it back for another vote. They never did.

But now Kyoto has been succeeded by the Copenhagen festivities. Since Copenhagen is little more than The Second Coming of Kyoto — which was fundamentally a profound attack on American sovereignty (as well as the sovereignty of every other Nation-State in the world) — then one hopes the Senate will continue to refuse to "go along." We the People must do everything in our power to "encourage" them to continue in that refusal.

But one anticipates The Big 0 can find "helpers" in the Senate, by hook or by crook.... [Rahm Emmanuel, David Axelrod, et al., enter Stage Left.... Bring in the "fixers!"]

Among other things, we might mention to our Senators that the science on which this entire policy debate is founded and depends is just so much "witchcraft." And in the most scandalous way imaginable: as involving the compromise of one of the most "sacred tools" the human race has for reliably understanding its position in the World: the integrity of science itself.

So people, pay attention to goings on in the Senate!!! And hold your own Senators' feet to the fire.

This must be stopped. This is the wholesale selling of America into perpetual slavery and/or oblivion — IOW, this is the "fire sale."

[betty boop]

Even the Supreme Court of the USA has been so misled that it has issued an opinion that, on its face, is scandalously wrong!

Unfortunately dear brother in Christ, the Justices of the Supreme Court are not trained scientists. Nor was Judge Jones....

The point being that science and its controversies should never be within the purview of courts of law for their adjudication. Only a person from Mars could argue that would be a "good thing."

[betty boop]

What a beautiful, beautiful testimony, dear brother in Christ!

I can only reply: Thank you from my heart, and all praise and glory be to God!

[Quix]

Well put.

Witchcraft, indeed.

Literally, probably, at some level.

Thx.

[metmom]

The point being that science and its controversies should never be within the purview of courts of law for their adjudication. Only a person from Mars could argue that would be a "good thing."

That explains a lot......

[Quix]

I suspect the critter from Mars would have more sense . . . providing he wasn’t a fallen angel . . .

[marron]

What fascinates me is to look at how well this fraud has been sold to the public. If your kids are in school, they’ve been well indoctrinated in it. It has been pushed in all of the media, and almost no one dares to deny it in public. This is classic naked-emperor stuff in which people who see the king in his underwear are shouted down and mau-maued into silence.

This is worth studying from the viewpoint of a lesson in mind control on a massive level. They took something that wasn’t true, changed the data, and essentially dared anyone to call them on it. And almost no one did, so intimidated were they, and so desperate are most people to be on the winning team.

Some of us are used to being in the minority, but for most people, its very uncomfortable, and if you can convince them that all the smart people think “x”, then they’ll do any contortion necessary to think the same.

This was the biggest money-laundering scheme, the biggest Madoff securities scam, and the biggest power grab in history, and it almost worked. This episode should be studied as classic propaganda, classic mind control, just like war colleges study famous battles.

[betty boop]

This was the biggest money-laundering scheme, the biggest Madoff securities scam, and the biggest power grab in history, and it almost worked. This episode should be studied as classic propaganda, classic mind control, just like war colleges study famous battles.

Indeed and agreed. Funny how the MSM isn't covering it....

I only hope that your "almost worked" language is prophetic.

AGW has been from the first a massive propaganda operation. It does not rest on scientific grounds at all, only on ideological grounds. Finally, crystal-clear evidence has surfaced that this is precisely the case.

Thank you ever so much, dear marron, for your penetrating insights on this score!