Unmasking the Climate Change Hoax

( – promoted by buhdydharma )

I’ve done the research.

I’ve connected the dots.

Through painstaking investigation, surveillance, correspondence and even — I confess — a little ethics-bending chicanery, I’ve discovered the root of the Climate Change Hoax.  It is, indeed, a conspiracy.  The conspirators are an amoral, but dedicated, lot, indeed.  Here’s how they do it:

Every third Tuesday of the month representatives (along with various subordinates, mid-level managers, staffers and hangers-on) from  NASA, the University of Maine Climate Change Institute, the American Geophysical Union, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, NOAA, the Japanese Cabinet, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Lloyds of London, the European Union, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the European Science Foundation, the American Meteorological Society, the EPA, the Vatican, Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Company, the G8+5, the Asia Development Bank, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the American Society for Microbiology, the Royal Society of New Zealand, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, the Department of Energy, the United Nations (of course), the American Chemical Society, the World Health Organization, Munich Re (reinsurance corporation), United Methodist Women (the organization by that name), the University of New Hampshire Climate Change Research Center, the American Institute of Physics, the Association of British Insurers, International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, the Australian Coral Reef Society, and the vast majority of the world’s climatologists all get together at Bob and Sherry’s house in Bethesda, Maryland, for veg/vegan potluck and debrief regarding their previous month’s progress and map-out the coming month’s plans for promoting their “climate change” myth.  Of course the ultimate goal is to sucker Congress into giving more money to their nefarious cabal.

Note:  the foregoing list of conspirators is incomplete.  

____________________________

Semi cross-posted at Huffington Post.  

22 comments

Skip to comment form

    • Mu on October 22, 2010 at 3:02 pm
      Author
    • Mu on October 22, 2010 at 3:03 pm
      Author
    • Edger on October 22, 2010 at 3:08 pm

    Can’t forget the liberal media. They’ll say anything to promote their socialist agenda for ginormous government (like the nearly trillion dollar a year pentagon budget) and taxing freedom out of existence. They love terrists, too.

  1. …. there is no mercy.  Sheesh.  

    • Mu on October 24, 2010 at 12:09 am
      Author
  2. October 6, 2010

    The Royal Society, which is Britain’s top dog in science (indeed many scientists would say the world), has just published a report signalling the end of claims of a consensus by some climate scientists and some governments that the world faces dangerous warming unless governments act quickly to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

    The report, Climate Change: a summary of the science, points out that climate change “continues to be the subject of intensive scientific research and public debate” and divides the existing state of knowledge into three categories – science that is well established, where there is wide consensus but continuing debate, and where there remains substantial uncertainty.

    In the latter category, for example, the acknowledgment that the uptake of CO2 by the land and oceans is “very poorly understood” is tantamount to saying that it is not possible to predict with any confidence the future concentration levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. It certainly leaves open the possibility that the uptake of CO2 by land and oceans will be considerably higher than the extreme 25% rate projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (it is currently 50%). If that happened it would mean that concentrations of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) would reach supposedly dangerous levels at a significantly later date than the alarmists are predicting – and temperatures would rise less.  

    Further, while claiming “strong evidence” exists that warming has been caused “largely by human activity”, it acknowledges that the size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change are “still subject to uncertainty” and that the attribution of forced climate change to particular causes is “not straight forward”. Remarkably, the report also accepts that since 1910 increases in temperature have occurred in only two periods – from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to around 2000 – that is, for only about half of the last century. Although the usual scientific explanation of the warming thesis is that temperature increases are caused by increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, the Royal Society report provides no explanation of why the increase in CO2 concentrations during most of the century did not result in continuing temperature increases.

    However, perhaps the most devastating statement for alarmists is that “It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future”.

    (emphasis mine)

    See Opening closed minds

    I’ve posted quite a bit on this topic at OpenLeft, in the past 3 weeks or so. In particular, this comment has a list of 10 scientists, who certainly look more than qualified, who don’t buy Catastrophic AGW. I took these from   Final word on Global Warming -650 Top Scientists Dissent On AWG

    There are 3 major subplots, going on here, which is obscuring what should be a scientific issue. One is the political aspect (at least in the US). It appears that conservatives called this correctly (basically because of dumb luck, not any particular talent for evaluating scientific data and claims), and lefties that want to pretend that they are objective and the righties are always wrong can’t deal with this. Secondly, there is the sociology and politics of scientists, themselves. And thirdly, there’s a very interesting Goldman Sachs, make trillions of $, interject yourself in cap-and-trade, angle.

    So, we have 2 layers of tribalism, and 1 follow-the-money(in trillions of $) aspect. An obfuscated mess is not exactly unexpected, looked at this way.

    Anyway, an hour of googling will show you what a laughble notion the idea of catastrophic AGW being “settled”, is. If you want to save some time, again, I refer you to my recent posts on OpenLeft, for relevant links.

Comments have been disabled.