November 21, 2009

The Day the Left Stood Still

As you know by now the Great Climate Change Hoax—which has been steadily losing ground in the past few years—suffered what should be a fatal blow when hackers raided the servers of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit and posted ten years worth of emails. The CRU is among the greatest contributors to the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

And now their own emails expose the world top manmade climate change advocates apparently guilty of doctoring—apparently out right fabricating—much of the key research that has driven the climate change zealots to the edge of wrecking the world's economies (while making quite a few of them very wealthy).

Quite frankly, the evidence is starting to indicate that the global warming/cooling fetishists were duped by what appears to be the greatest scam ever perpetrated upon mankind, racketeering that may indict many of the world's top scientists and politicians, up to and including our own Nobel-winning former Vice President Al Gore.

The theory of anthropogenic climate change has been revealed as nothing more or less than a criminal enterprise. What does the media have to say about it?

As James Delingpole notes very little at all. the case of "Climate Change", the MSM has been caught with its trousers down. The reason it has been so ill-equipped to report on this scandal is because almost all of its Environmental Correspondents and Environmental Editors are parti pris members of the Climate-Fear Promotion lobby. Most of their contacts (and information sources) work for biased lobby groups like Greenpeace and the WWF, or conspicuously pro-AGW government departments and Quangos such as the Carbon Trust. How can they bring themselves to report on skullduggery at Hadley Centre when the scientists involved are the very ones whose work they have done most to champion and whose pro-AGW views they share?

A quick scan of who's talking on Memeorandum indicates that the blogospheric chatter over the hoax is coming almost uniformly from the center-right.

The left wing blogs that have largely bought into the fraud of manmade climate change have been deathly silent as their pseudo-religion has been exposed.

But then, what is there to say? They were duped. Lied to. Hoodwinked. Bamboozled. In their shame, perhaps the best option is silence.

* * *

The downside of the exposure of the AGW hoax is the possible backlash again the green movement. While the worst of them are indeed perpetrators and accomplices in this fraud, the vast majority of those in the green movement are engaged in very good work that encourages recycling and optimizing resource usage, something that all of us should get behind, regardless of our politics. We only have one world, and we should be it's stewards.

While fear-driven politics like those soon to be on display in Copenhagen and the the abortive cap-and-tax scheme here in the United States are destructive, we should, after the fears of AGW have been exposed, be able to take a far more rational look at how to best preserve the world that we call home.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at November 21, 2009 03:20 PM

The only unanswered question for me ..
Did any of these folks (in the e-mails) ever give testimony before Congress or any court under oath ?

If so, they should go to jail.

Posted by: Neo at November 21, 2009 03:54 PM

The downside of the exposure of the AGW hoax is the possible backlash again the green movement.

Uh, no: the vast vast vast majority of the 'green' movement has been pushing this hoax for over a decade and now that it's time to pay the piper, they all need to be loaded into the plastic recycler (another fraudulent waste of time, money and resources anyone can learn about by doing even the most basic research) and processed into something more useful like a patio set. (For the few saints in the green movement--like, say, the now apostate founder of Greenpeace--we can find those ten or twelve people some productive work elsewhere.)

Posted by: ECM at November 21, 2009 05:53 PM

The memeorandum links you've got there include RealClimate.

That's a climate blog, not a leftist blog. But since leftists aren't really who you'd look to for interpretation on scientific topics any more than you should right-wingers, who really cares how many or few there are.

You are after all talking about how many different people copy/pasted the same original story and conclusions as though this is any meaningful contribution.

I noticed HuffPo is now quoting a science blog pointing out how ridiculous this right-wing meme is. Does this make anyone happier or sadder, or is this again really nothing of merit from a partisan political blog beyond demonstrating that remarkable ability of being able to ctrl-c, ctrl-v?

Posted by: Mars at November 21, 2009 08:21 PM

"A quick scan of who's talking on Memeorandum indicates that the blogospheric chatter over the hoax is coming almost uniformly from the center-right."

Memeorandum hasn't been listing a number of left blogs for almost a year. I use a Firefox addon that colors left blog links blue and right blog links red and have noticed a steady decline in left blogs over the past year. Three years ago, you could clearly see that it was almost an even level of right and left links, depending upon the story of course. Now, it's very heavily almost always all red links. And, a number of left blogs don't appear at all any longer.

I wrote Gabe Rivera a few months ago and asked him what was going on and he said that he doesn't really monitor the site very much anymore, as he is much too busy with Techmeme. He said if he has the time, he'd try to recalibrate the left seed blogs.

But, as of today, the main page of Memeorandum has a total of 5 blue links and around 50 red links.

So, it's not the sample you think it is anymore.

Posted by: DJ at November 21, 2009 08:59 PM

"The memeorandum links you've got there include RealClimate.

That's a climate blog, not a leftist blog."

No, it's a leftist blog that masquerades as a climate blog. Very much like the AGW issue is a leftist campaign masquerading as science. Read the emails -- it's obvious that RC was considered part of the crowd, folks they could trust to toe the line and not make any politically embarrassing admissions.

AGW should go down as the 21st century's parallel to eugenics -- a scientific mask pulled over a political/aesthetic/religious campaign by totalitarians too ashamed to admit their real goals.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at November 21, 2009 10:27 PM

Real Climate? Ha Ha Ha Ha! That is the blog run by many of those implicated by the released emails.

Left? Yup! More importantly one of the vehicles of misinformation used by these ?scientists? It is also used to downplay and ridicule any paper that does not conform with their views, while emphasizing their own papers. It has for years filtered comments. As do many of the pro-AGW blogs.

Posted by: CoRev at November 21, 2009 11:10 PM

"No, it's a leftist blog that masquerades as a climate blog."

Well if that's the case, it would appear to be doing a rather stellar job of it.

After all, if they're not scientists and neither are you, and we're commenting on a story about people who should be able to muster up a defense but aren't, I'm a little confused as to why I'm not seeing a takedown of RealClimate on the topics, papers, research methodology and concepts they mention in their explanation of why this story is of no merit.

Will we do that now, or did you not think this through fully?

Posted by: Mars at November 21, 2009 11:37 PM

You do realize that recycling costs more and pollutes much more than making the products new don't you? The only product that even comes close to breaking even in both cost and pollution is aluminum. Recycling is a much bigger hoax than "global warming" because they've been lying about that for so much longer.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at November 21, 2009 11:39 PM

"I'm a little confused"

Like that's a shock to all of us

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at November 21, 2009 11:43 PM

@ Capitalist Infidel
Your points about recycling, if not true, are certainly close. I personally wonder what the money/energy/pollution cost of a paper plate is relative to the water/energy/pollution cost of washing a ceramic plate.

The biggest reason to recycle things is to reduce what ends up in landfills. It is not unreasonable that there be some cost for keeping a disposable item out of a landfill.

My biggest irritation about recycling is that we pay for it TWICE .. once in the extra costs for our trash service, and a second time in the deposits (aka CRV in California) for various containers.

Posted by: Tom J. at November 22, 2009 12:43 AM

Mars, I refer you to my comment just prior to yours. I also add this little tidbit. RC has been providing only half the story, while ridiculing any papers and authors not supportive of their views. So has the MSM, some of which are clearly captive of these same nefarious few, and the authors on RC.

With only half the story you are making assumptions of truthiness and validity. Sheesh!

Posted by: CoRev at November 22, 2009 08:57 AM

There's much more to recycling than tossing your plastic bottles into a bin marked "Recycle" rather than one marked "Landfill."

A lot of steel comes from recycling junked cars. A lot of metals are extracted from old electronics and recycled -- which is important when you consider that current mine production of some metals is not enough to meet the demand.

A lot of paper comes from recycling newsprint and other scrap paper. Yes, it costs a little bit more, but frankly, I think $3.65 for a ream of partly-recycled paper, instead of $3.50 for a ream of all-new-straight-from-the-tree paper is a price difference worth paying.

Oh, and do you have any idea how much of both money and plastic I've saved over the years by rinsing 20-oz Gatorade bottles and filling them with tapwater, instead of buying cases of bottled water?

Posted by: wolfwalker at November 22, 2009 09:37 AM

It's curious to see how secular society has several intolerant religions attacking it. From the assault of Islam to the conspiracy of the Gaiaists (the Church of the AGW), reason is on the defensive.

Religion is a powerful motivator as it creates a remarkable capacity to rationalize delusion, deception, discrimination and outright destruction of others. We need to both ridicule the media who fails to report on the fraud and deceit as well as enforce the "separation of church and state" framework upon these science haters. RICO and other instruments of legal disruption would be beneficial as well, though we probably can't count on an objective, unbiased Federal investigative and prosecutorial system any longer.

Posted by: HatlessHessian at November 22, 2009 09:57 AM

I cannot share your affection for the "green" movement. The problem is that almost all greens believe in compulsion with the enthusiasm that characterized the rise of fascism and communism. Greenism is a religious movement that treats non believers with all the compassion that jihadis treat dhimmis or the inquisition treated skeptics. Greens, whether engaged in AGW alarmism or not, have attempted to create a society where tossing a can in the trash is equivalent to assault and battery.

I believe in preservationism, in the Theodore Roosevelt sense, not in recycling materials that cost more to recycle than to produce and pollute more in bargain. I do not believe you should be compelled to have 11 different colored trash cans so some yuppie can feel good about saving the earth. I do not believe that every life form deserves protection ( I'd willingly condemn the anopheles mosquito to extinction ). I do not believe that conservation is always the best answer, I want to drill everywhere oil production could be profitable.

The green movement is dishonest from top to bottom and the AGW alarmists are only the most vocal of an authoritarian crusade.

Posted by: Ken Hahn at November 22, 2009 02:01 PM

What's the old saying? Green on the outside, Red (communist) on the inside.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at November 22, 2009 06:14 PM

"We only have one world, and we should be it's stewards."

what are you talking about? there's a whole universe of planets out there, and the only thing keeping us from exploring is cowardice and fear.

"Earth First! We can strip mine the other planets later..."

Posted by: redc1c4 at November 22, 2009 06:20 PM

redc1c4 said:
"Earth First! We can strip mine the other planets later..."


I also disagree about the greens. Kill them now or they will come back to haunt you with another fake cause that will lead to totalitarianism. Remember your Machiavelli.

Posted by: Dan Maloney at November 22, 2009 08:53 PM

"The biggest reason to recycle things is to reduce what ends up in landfills."

Why do we want to do that?

Toxic materials, sure. It's worth extra effort to keep batteries out of landfills, because they can poison groundwater.

But inert materials in a landfill are harmless. That includes all plastics, glass, and aluminum. Biodegradable materials (like paper, cardboard, and steel) also do no environmental harm.

"It is not unreasonable that there be some cost for keeping a disposable item out of a landfill."

I fail to see the logic in that. Why pay the cost of doing something that's totally unnecessary? And don't bother repeating the bogus argument about running out of landfill space. That won't happen for thousands of years, if ever.

No, Capitalist Infidel is correct. With the exception of aluminum, the entire recycling industry is a sham. It wastes money and pollutes more than landfilling the trash would.

Posted by: Sundog at November 23, 2009 02:15 AM

Greens are Reds. It is as simple as that.

Posted by: megapotamus at November 25, 2009 04:37 PM