Did anyone else hear about the scientists caught planting Bobcat/Lynx fur, to fudge results determining it's range area? I doubt it, but it happened, a few years back. They said they were actually "testing" the lab that they sent the fur to, because "biologists were skeptical that the lab would produce accurate results; they were suspicious of test results, ironically enough, because another lab had found more lynx than the biologists thought was likely." Really. A similar problem is happening in the global warming community. Apparently, the evidence has indicated that temperatures aren't predictable by any of the "global warming" models. Perhaps they were doing an "unauthorized" data entry to check that other "scientists" weren't cheating on their results.
"What is he talking about?" you might ask. I'm referring to the recently leaked emails between researchers from the University Of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, working with the UN IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change). It seems that someone allegedly hacked into the university's system, and stole a huge amount of data, including emails that expose fraudulent reporting of climate records. The scientists involved have admitted they wrote the emails: one of them seeks to redefine the meaning of the word "trick" for his actions. He may be from England, but he definitely went to the "Bill Clinton" school of legal defense.
So now there's evidence of fraud in the science behind global warming theories. How is any rational person going to accept all of the "cures" that the government wants to thrust on taxpayers, at considerable expense? It's interesting that some scientists complained of "political" interference over global warming, when Bush was in office. Could it have been that the Bush Administration was suspicious of the scientists' objectivity? If so, it appears to be justified. This is why the "lame stream media" are ignoring this story. "Objective" reporting is shunned, in favor of "ideological" reporting, and story selection.
Furthering that goal, the one major cable news network (FOX) that has run this story is called "biased," in the face of plain facts. It's almost funny, that the "LSM" want the public to get important news from another outlet. Did they learn nothing from the ACORN corruption story, which keeps expanding? Al Gore's movie was just the tip of the iceberg, regarding the global warming science fraud. These emails show how widespread it is, in the scientific community. Perhaps we can let some unbiased scientists examine this theory.
The opposition is led by Rush Limbaugh: "Do you know that the Fox News Channel is the only television outlet to report on ClimateGate? The rest of the media is totally ignoring it. The Washington Post is actually attacking the "deniers." This whole hoax has been fully exposed. These people were hiding data. They were hiding data from a Freedom of Information request. There are e-mails from the guy that ran the place, this university in England, to all of his contributors and all the members of his committee: "Don't release any information. I'll delete it rather than release it, if I have to." They made up numbers. They totally ignored numbers that disproved global cooling. This is a giant, giant, giant scam. It deserves a huge investigation. And Obama, if he was worth his salt, would be the first one demanding it because this has been allowed to hijack an international agenda that is oriented toward further fleecing of the United States. That's all it is."
Meanwhile, our president is going to Copenhagen to assert that the US is "committed" to action on climate change. He's talking out of his ass, and everyone in the world knows it. It's unfortunate, but he has to say these things for posterity, in case he actually gets his "cap and tax" policy through the congress. That's not gonna happen, at least in an election year. This story is a huge "nail in that coffin," so to speak. A president who says he will "rely on science" for policy decisions will be undermined when the scientists lie.
Here's an excerpt from Politico.com: "I think we go into Copenhagen with a very, very strong hand," said one of the officials. "We have done I think more than anyone could have expected us to do in a short time."
The targets, said Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Ed Markey will demonstrate U.S. leadership on the climate issue and encourage other nations to make firm commitments.
"The Obama administration will be able to say to the world we are no longer going to preach temperance from a bar stool. We are now ready to begin to make a commitment," he told POLITICO.
I also liked this quote, from a supporter of "climate-change" legislation, regarding the Copenhagen meeting: "They're looking for that assurance from the president himself that this is going to get done," said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists. I'm always concerned about groups with the word "concerned" in their names, but it looks like they're "looking for love in all the wrong places," if they think the President's "assurance" means anything. His word is as good as dirt, starting with his promise of closing GITMO, continuing with his promise to end "don't ask, don't tell," and his repeated blown deadlines on passing health care reform, or making a decision on troop committments in Afghanistan.
These are just the top few of a long list. It looks as if President Obama IS preaching temperance from a bar stool. If anything, his actions have harmed the nation. "9/11" trials in NYC? WHAT WERE YOU THINKING, SIR! Promoting a highly divisive (and expensive) "health care" program, in the deepest recession since the early '80's, while we're in a two-front war? Now, you want us to pay for another liberal scam? I don't think so.
The public is solidly against higher energy taxes, which is what "cap and trade" promises to do. Now that there is evidence of it being based on fraudulent science, public opposition in the US will increase, regardless of media attempts to "shovel it under the rug." Energy conservation should be a high priority, but it will be driven by economics, not government regulation. If China and India won't restrict their economic growth for the global warming theory, don't expect the US to.