“a right to an opinion, people who have studied the issue” You mean like the CRU of UEA? Yeah, they’re a credible bunch. Idiot.

If anything the media is an accomplice in this whole hoax, so what is your beef, besides not liking this crap being exposed?

He said: “With only days to go before Copenhagen we mustn’t be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics. We know the science. We know what we must do.”

Greg Clark, the Conservative shadow energy secretary, told the Daily Telegraph the emails were a cause for concern.

“This has clearly concerned a lot of people, including myself. You need to be able to rely on the scientific opinion. It is important that we should be able to have confidence in the research,” he said.

Announcing a review of the case, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said the matter could not be “brushed under the carpet”.”

“Anti-science”? Maybe those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. As Dr. Pachauri himself notes, the entire issue with the East Anglia CRU is that they weren’t doing science, but advocacy. They conspired to silence critics, refused to release their methodology, used “garbage” data to bolster their claims, and then destroyed the raw data on which they based their models and conclusions. What about that is pro-science?

Perhaps Gordon Brown needs to familiarize himself with actual science rather than political hackery. Actual science gets conducted in the open, and needs repeatable conclusions and full data sets to be considered “settled.” It welcomes scrutiny and testing; actual science doesn’t hide from scrutiny, or conspire to block it, and actual scientists don’t plot ways to ruin the careers of those who question the models or results.

Brown has put himself clearly in the “Shut up, he explained” school, which isn’t science at all. It’s what leaders of a cult say when the brainwashing starts to weaken.

A Washington Times editorial puts this in perspective:

Never mind that two major universities have at least temporarily removed prominent academics from heading major climate research facilities. Never mind that there are real questions raised about the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) controversial assessment report that the Obama administration and global-warming advocates have continually hyped in order to advance their case for new global regulations to curtail purported global warming.
Liberal news agencies might be casting a blind eye at this controversy, but even left-wing comedians such as “The Daily Show’s” Jon Stewart take these events seriously enough to make fun of the defenses being offered by the scientists caught in the scandal. Take one of Mr. Stewart’s jokes regarding the now infamous e-mail about the “trick of adding in the real temps to each series … to hide the decline [in temperature].” A Tuesday repartee follows:

Mr. Stewart: “It’s nothing. He was just using a trick to hide the decline. It is just scientist speak for using a standard statistical technique recalibrating data in order to trick you into not knowing about the decline. But here is what is great about science in disagreement. We go back and look at the raw data.”

Announcer: “University scientists say raw data from the 1980s was thrown out.”

Jon Stewart: “Why would you go and throw out data from the 1980s? I still have Penthouses from the 1970s.”

Say what you want about Jon Stewart – and we’ve said plenty here at AT – the guy has a nose for news that the American people want to know. And what little people have learned about Climategate from the internet, Stewart, and late night TV comics has whetted their appetite for more.

This hasn’t moved the gatekeepers of the old media who continue to bury the story, hoping it will just go away. Fortunately, there are enough internet outlets as well as a precious few newspapers – many in Great Britain – who know a good story when they see it and are pursuing it with energy and intelligence.

It should be interesting to watch as mainstream news outlets have to really work to ignore Climategate at Copenhagen. My guess; they won’t even cover the questions asked about it.

From a piece by Juliet Eilperin in the Washington Post:

“The Obama administration will formally declare Monday that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions pose a danger to the public’s health and welfare, a move that lays the groundwork for an economy-wide carbon cap even if Congress fails to enact climate legislation, sources familiar with the process said.”

Nothing like giving the finger to the Democratic process.

“The move, which Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa P. Jackson will announce at an afternoon press conference, comes as the largest climate change conference in history gets underway in Copenhagen. It will finalize an initial “endangerment finding” by the government in April.
While an EPA spokeswoman declined to comment on the matter, the agency sent out a press advisory that Jackson will make “a significant climate announcement at a press briefing” at 1:15 p.m. at EPA headquarters. Jackson also will speak at the U.N.-sponsored climate conference Wednesday; her address is titled “Taking Action at Home.” President Obama, who will attend the end of the U.N. talks Dec. 18, has sent a series of recent signals to the international community that the United States will curb its carbon output as part of a new global climate deal.

The endangerment finding stems from a 2007 Supreme Court decision in which the court ordered the EPA to determine whether greenhouse gases qualify as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. It could trigger a series of federal regulations affecting polluters, from vehicles to coal-fired power plants.”

The regs could affect a lot more than that.

“An endangerment finding from the EPA could result in a top-down command-and-control regime that will choke off growth by adding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project,” Thomas Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said in a statement. “The devil will be in the details, and we look forward to working with the government to ensure we don’t stifle our economic recovery.”

The potential to control economic activity by executive fiat is huge. In effect, any president will be able to regulate economic activity to a degree that is unprecedented in American history. All because the politically motivated EPA has determined that CO2 is bad for your health.

And note our brave and true Chamber of Commerce getting on board the green bandwagon. Don’t worry. Large corporations will shape the regs to fit their needs while leaving small business in the lurch. This seems to be a pattern repeating itself as Obama’s far left agenda is being if not supported, then certainly shaped by Fortune 500 companies who figure it’s better to get along and go along rather than fight. We are seeing it with new banking regs, new financial services regs, and now the new CO2 regs (watch them assist Obama with regulations on national health care too).

Republicans can do little to stop this power grab by the executive. And forget the Supreme Court. They were the ones who enabled this monstrosity in the first place.

How long before the government regulates your breathing?

Back in those days, it was. I regularly got my research papers published in Nature, that august journal.

I also was invited to become trustee, president, vice president, or patron of over 30 organizations, including: WWF, Wildlife Trusts, YHA, Population Concern, Marine Conservation Society, Coral Cay Conservation, Galapagos Conservation Trust, Plantlife, and BTCV. I was also bestowed with media and conservation awards from around the world, including the Dutch Order of the Golden Ark, BAFTA’s Richard Dimbleby Award, and the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award for Underwater Research.

Then the global warming rot set in.

Two media colleagues, Julian Pettifer and Robin Page, were publicly sacked by the BBC — in essence, because they could no longer be viewed as non-biased in their opinions.

I can only only assume that, to them, I also fell into that category — because from that point on my career on TV came to an abrupt end. Despite my resume of approximately 400 TV shows.

Since that time onwards, anyone who sticks their head out for the anti-wind power or anti-global warming arguments has been subject to vilification, never scientific debate.

But I am proud to carry on, sticking my head out for both.

Ms. H-P: To make matters worse, Michael Mann, who was involved in a lot of those e-mails planning to manipulate data, is under investigation by Penn State University where he works. This is awful.

Us: Granted, it is serious. Jones, Mann and others worked, via e-mails, to deny dissenting scientists peer review forums. They manipulated temperature data and stonewalled Freedom of Information Act requests — among things.

Ms. H-P: I believed them when they said man-made global warming was a matter of settled science.

Us: It never was. The “proof” is in the form of computer projections based on data considered to be insufficiently comprehensive by many scientists. Furthermore, Jones and his CRU colleagues claim the base data that started this process was lost or disposed of several years ago. Very convenient.

Ms. H-P: But why would they falsify data?

Us: No one knows for sure. The lure of big money might be one reason. Jones, for example, received approximately $19 million worth of research grants between 2000 and 2006. That’s six times greater than he received for the entire decade of the ’90s.

Bear in mind that UN bureaucrats, egged on by the some of the members — not to mention the most ardent environmentalists — kept sounding the alarm that icebergs were melting, sea levels would rise and we would all fry within a few years. Their motivation? An international treaty that would bind the industrialized nations to sharply reduce industrial production while forking over billions of dollars to non-industrialized ones. All these grand conferences are intended to produce that result. It’s social engineering on a worldwide scale. The state of the climate is only a vehicle to achieve it.

Ms. H-P. I hadn’t thought of it that way. When I first observed that the sky was falling, I contacted a scientist friend who said I might be on to something. He’d noticed that the average temperature that year was up a little and he thought there might be a correlation. He spread to some of his colleagues and it caught on. Why one of them, James Hansen of NASA, became a regular Paul Revere sounding the alarm. During the George W. Bush Administration he claimed he was being muzzled, but he managed to give 1,400 interviews and turn out many alarming NASA press releases. Now it looks as if the temperature data he was using was wrong.

Us: Don’t forget John Holdren, President Obama’s science advisor. He’s been an alarmist for over 30 years. In 1971 he predicted a new ice age. He said it would be caused by burning jet fuel, agricultural dust and smog — all things generated by human activity. The ice age didn’t happen, so now he’s selling global warming.

Holdren was also involved in a Climategate e-mail exchange. And, he sought to undermine the professional credibility of two physicists for papers they published in which they concluded there was not persuasive evidence to support the widely held view that anthropogenic (that is, man-made) globe warming is a fact.

Ms. H-P: I am devastated. Before I called you I canceled by tickets for Copenhagen. I’m just too depressed to attend. On top of that I haven’t been able to get through to our Pontiff, Al Gore. I was sure he would give me reassurance, but both his voice mailbox and his e-mailbox are full. He hasn’t said a word publicly since the Climategate scandal broke.

Us: Maybe that’s because he’s an investor in a firm that will sell “carbon credits” to companies that are over their quota. That would be a very profitable business if the Obama Cap-and-Trade bill were to pass the Senate. So, your Pontiff may be spending all his time in Washington lobbying. .

Ms. H-P: Oh.

Right again.

Global climate change is real. Sure, the climate on Earth has changed many times as a result of natural phenomena since the beginning of the planet. But the preponderance of scientific evidence, from many scientisits the world over, is that in the past century there has been an unusually rapid increase in average temperature caused by human activity.

Now, there are far too many scientists, institutions, books, conferences and journals for me to list all the evidence that man-made climate change is real. So the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that all these scientists are wrong.

The proverbial ball is on your court.

“Scientists”, many involved in the rationality of global warming, look to fill their own pockets. If politics are involved, well, it forces the public by absurd laws, to fill the pockets of the scientists and the politicians alike in their global warming crusade. It is immoral and does great disservice to science.

They, the global warming activists, look to scare people under the disguise of “objective science” with their ideas of Armagheddon (the rise of seas, and the raging weather). Then their priests, (Al Gore) call for humanity’s support to their faithful cause by forcing Americans (cap and trade) into paying for their fight to the end of the world. Very similar resemblance to religion indeed.

Why is there not any focus on some of the dissent? There is plenty of it as many many scientists left the IPCC. East Anglia is another example of the fraud of the global warming by lying to Americans by invoking a “ends justifying the means” sort of philosophy. Look at the leading climatologist from MIT who dissented from the global warming alarmism—he was immediately painted as a liar.

In science, one has to remain objective, accepting criticism and understanding other points of view. If we cannot bring to light the challenges and debate them—not merely dismiss them as lies—then it isn’t science. That and I cannot stand politicians getting involved in the subject (and my livelihood) that I am extremely passionate about. Politics and science should not mix, especially when they continue to lie.

To pretend that the media and special interest groups are pushing truth over politics is to be a zealot fool..

The theory is possible but it falls apart if its left to stand on its own merrit.. Nothing supports it except lies and bogus computer models.

Indeed it is arrogant and insensitive to the poor to demand higher prices for affordable energy, clothing and anything that is related to the resource of oil—especially when it relates to China or India. All of it is done for our demand of submission to our environmental god for the “survival of future generations”—which is essentially a power grab by the high priests of environmentalism.

Oil is running out?? Where did you hear that? Who’s misinformed? Brazil discovered oil and there and most areas that could provide oil are actually off limits (i.e. Alaska). But I wouldn’t expect someone as emotionally driven as you to allow facts to get in the way of your religious character.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7086264.stm

Even if it were running low, it is normal that market conditions should allow use of alternative resources, not government coercion.

Plastic doesn’t do anything for humans? I will not even address that one, its too silly. Take off that fleece kid, oil has tainted your lifestyle.