The White House Connection to “Climategate”
Tags: Climategate, global warming, liberal lies.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
The scandal spreads – eventually, I expect a very large portion of the left’s leadership will be found culpable to at least some extent:
Lift up a rock and another snake comes slithering out from the ongoing University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) scandal, now riding as “Climategate”.
Obama Science Czar John Holdren is directly involved in CRU’s unfolding Climategate scandal. In fact, according to files released by a CEU hacker or whistleblower, Holdren is involved in what Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball terms “a truculent and nasty manner that provides a brief demonstration of his lack of understanding, commitment on faith and willingness to ridicule and bully people”.
A very large number of people have been lying about climate change and the higher up the food chain the worse the lies and the greater the personal culpability. Do not for a moment think that people are incapable of such a breath taking scale of lies – people are quite capable of it and have done it, repeatedly, throughout history (though much more commonly since leftist thought first started to infect our public debates).
The left is ideology – it is, indeed, the triumph of ideology. Once someone subscribes to it all critical thinking is suppressed and all independent thought forbidden. The rewards for obedience are many – comradeship; special privileges; help in careers; praise – while the punishment for apostasy is complete exile coupled with slander. The leftists who have renounced their faith in the past – most notably people like Whittaker Chambers – have found that their friends of yesterday are the quite vile enemies of today. So, once in leftists tend to stay in and go along with ever more enormous lies.
This one, though, may play a key role in unraveling the left and giving us our opening to completely remove the left from any influence on American politics.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
29 Responses to “The White House Connection to “Climategate””
Caucus of Corruption
I was amazed how deep this went.
…
(see excerpts from leaked E-Mails)
…
soros him self plans on making “trillions” of dollars on this, and emphasises that to Gore…encouraging Gore to invest everything into this…fraud…
so the whole it in a nut shell is that they planned to create this “climate change” crisis from the start…to fleece the economies and gain power…
It’s all about power and control and played upon liberals emotions, which are quite easy to toy with.
Among the things Dr. Ball apparently regards as “truculent and nasty” is this (Ball’s opinion is indicated in bold): “After the first response Schulz replies, “I guess my problem concerns what lawyers call the burden of proof. The burden weighs heavily, much more heavily, given the claims on Mann et.al. than it does on Soon/Baliunas. Would you agree?” Of course, Holdren doesn’t agree. He replies, “But, in practice, burden of proof is an evolving thing-it evolves as the amount of evidence relevant to a particular proposition grows.” No it doesn’t evolve; it is either on one side or the other.
I would argue that that conclusion is demonstrably false, as there are myriad examples in the history of science. For example, early proponents of techtonic plate theory were considered crack-pots. Now it is quite the opposite — because the evidence in favor has grown. Similarly, early proponents of quantum mechanics met with considerable opposition. Who can forget Einstein’s comment, “God does not play dice with the universe”? Now, of course, anyone trying to propose a contrary viewpoint has an uphill climb — because the evidence has grown. A similar shift is now taking place in the study of dissipative dynamical systems, where chaos theory was once eschewed is now gaining ground — on the basis of the evidence. And of course there’s the granddaddy of all controversies, evolution. At any rate, it’s pretty obvious to me: the burden of proof does evolve. There is a saying in science, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, which IMO encapsulates the concept. After all, what makes a claim extraordinary is that it goes against conventional wisdom. And conventional wisdom changes over time as evidence accumulates.
rico,
How much money was off of the techtonic plate debate? Or how about the evolution argument? The main objection to AGW is not so much the actual validity of the argument (which is suspect at best), as it is the industry Gore, et al, has built around it, reaping in millions of dollars, not too mention using it as a club against other industries, and groups, they oppose.
ricorun,
You increasingly are the man with fingers in ears shouting “na, na, na I can’t hear you”. Wake up – stop trying to defend this. We’ve known AGW to be bogus for years now – this is making it fall apart. Even the MSM is starting to report on it – they have to, lest they look like complete idiots (though, of course, they are still doing whatever they can to help…but, in the end, they won’t give friendly reports to things that everyone knows to be false).
cluster, as to how much money was made of the techtonic plate debate, the quantum mechanics debate, the chaos theory debate, the evolution debate, or any other, including global warming, is an independent question. However, in each case I would say the money involved is, was, or potentially will be gigantic, though in different ways. But one unique aspect about the global warming debate is that multiple other compelling considerations converge on essentially the same solutions.
Mark: You increasingly are the man with fingers in ears shouting “na, na, na I can’t hear you”.
Whatever else could be said, it’s funny how things “evolve”, huh? Lol!
rico buddy,
To even infer that the previous “debates” and theories generated the same, or equivalent financially rich industry that AGW has is laughably absurd. And no, it is not an independent question, you were the one that made the comparison, and I am the one that pointed out the stark difference. AGW is a theory, and a very suspect one at that, what seperates it from other planetary theories is the amount of money liberals had made off of it, by pulling on the emotional strings of other liberals like you.
Ricorun exclaims, the burden of proof does evolve…and of course, that would be demonstrably false, and very easily falsifiable, as the so-called “burden of proof” for “man-made global warming” is the enormous number of lies that are coming from the global-warming advocates…and these lies continually change in order to try and get masses to accept them hook, line, sinker and all. They look continually for more ways to unjustifiable non-sense, justifiable. There first lie is “global warming” straight off the bat, and from there, it’s just one more lie in concession to get the masses in line.
Pitiful.
Guess what? They went out and actually proved their theory by doing science. The people who thought them crackpots were able to see the data and do their own experiments, and, guess what? The opponents found out that the “crack pots” were correct.
With AGW, the disciples refuse to release the data, and even go so far as hiding it, spoofing the computer models to give back the answer they want, hide data, and even delete data.
And, as far as Man being at fault, it is simply an unproven hypothesis, which goes along the lines of “CO2 continues to go up, temps are going up, so, the 2 must be linked, and it is all man’s fault.” I can do the same thing. Abortion rates have gone up, the temps went up, so, it must be because of Liberals who push for abortion rights. There, that’s easy, right?
The argument is not about actual temps, which, no matter how tiny the change, have gone up since the end of the Little Ice Age, Rico. Shocker, eh? The argument is about Mankind’s responsibility, as well as how good the data actually is. And it is up to the side of the True Believers to PROVE that it is Mankind’s fault.
Get this … we have 500+ billion barrels of oil in one state here, that’s enough to fuel American vehicles for 2,041 years, that’ Two-thosand and forty one years. And would only cost us $16 A BARREL. If we could get away from foreign oil and the “global warming” nuts, we might could get somewhere in this country.
“as to how much money was made of the techtonic plate debate, the quantum mechanics debate, the chaos theory debate, the evolution debate, or any other..”
please tell us what TAX or FEE that the world governments were going to impose on the productive and distribute those funds to developing nations. Were there any tectonic, quantum or chaos credits that world governments were to impose?
Thought not. Stop being a mindless lemming.
I never thought rico would ignore the First Rule of Holes.
Taking the second first…
cluster: And no, it is not an independent question, you were the one that made the comparison, and I am the one that pointed out the stark difference.
Huh? That doesn’t make any sense.
To even infer that the previous “debates” and theories generated the same, or equivalent financially rich industry that AGW has is laughably absurd.
Actually no, it’s not. While there are certainly numerous examples where scientific concensus hasn’t paid off at all (no matter how accurate they turned out to be — which is why the degree of concensus and the degree of payoff are independent considerations), the ones I mentioned are not in that class (at least potentially — chaos theory is a work in progress). For example, though it was Einstein who first posited how much energy was locked inside an atom, it was the theory of quantum mechanics that described how that energy was likely to be distributed and, more importantly, how to get at it. So every time someone makes money off cracking an atom, they have the theory of quantum mechanics to thank. And you can rest assured that the money involved is gigantic.
But another way to approach the issue is this: recall that the first attempts to assist renewable energy technology were not motivated by concern for climate change. When Brazil embarked on their biofuels industry, when Iceland embarked on their geothermal industry, when France embarked on their nuclear industry, or even when we here in the US started building windmills and solar PV and solar thermal plants, climate change was not the prime motivator — insecurities in the supply of fossil fuels were. Likewise, when California started curbing emissions, it wasn’t because of climate change — it was because the air was getting too toxic to breathe. Arguably, two of the major reasons for China’s recent and dramatic change in attitude away from fossil fuels and toward renewables are the same: the air in more and more of their cities is getting too toxic and fossil fuel supplies (and prices) are too unpredictable. But another biggie is this: they realize there’s money to be made in renewables — gigantic piles of it. And for the most part, that remains true regardless of whether AGW turns out to be a hoax or not.
Of course that money won’t go to everyone — it will go to those that successfully seize the moment soonest and/or most effectively. That, to me, is the real bottom line (so to speak, lol!).
Spook: I never thought rico would ignore the First Rule of Holes.
Borrowing from another comment on this thread, in this case I guess you could say one man’s lemming is another man’s prophet, lol! Said in another way (kisses to cluster), if this is a hole, I’m quite convinced it requires further excavation. And climate science has little to do with it.
What lies was Holdren involved with? The article you linked to only says that he has “a truculent and nasty manner”. There is a big difference between rudeness and dishonesty.
Yeah, you should see MTV nowadays.
Such as?
Then why am I unemployed?
“Good Comrade.”
Then how is it that I am still welcome? In fact, how is it that any of the countless disagreements within the Left exist? Shouldn’t High Command just be able to send in the T-55s and be done with it?
You’re an idiot.
Which they did. There is now a consensus in the scientific community that Global Warming is indeed anthropogenic. The ones they have not convinced are the laypeople, which is hardly surprising since the laypeople do not take part in scientific debates. Not only are they not generally interested, they don’t usually have the education to know what the debate is about, hence the term “laypeople”. To demonstrate this, let’s try an experiment. In the linguistic community, there is an ongoing debate about the number and nature of Proto-Indo-European laryngeals. I am inclined to reject the existence of *h₄, to characterize all of the laryngeals as fricatives rather than resonants (or stops in the case of *h₁), and to posit a velar or uvular place of articulation for *h₂ and *h₃ rather than a pharyngeal or epiglottal one. I challenge you (or anyone else) to coherently argue the opposite. You don’t have to agree with these positions (I know that several people on this site have very strong views on Hittite phonology), only to make the case. If you cannot do this with something as relatively simple as historical phonology, what makes you think you can do it for climatology?
There is now a consensus in the scientific community that Global Warming is indeed anthropogenic.
consensus–general agreement.
There is a consensus on this blog that you’re an idiot. You were indocrinated in Berkeley, a school riddled with socialists.
But, it’s just a consensus. There’s no scientific proof that you’re an idiot, but it may be true.
A consensus is not proof; it’t just a bunch of people who think alike, making a decision that’s acceptable to all of them.
Follow the money…
rhetoric can only hide the truth rico…it does nothing to further it…why do you always behave like the lemming eh?…did you get hit in the head when you were young?…did a donkeyrat kick you so hard that you lost your common sense and became a slowbot?…have you not seen the basis of the “concesus” that you want to believe in and did they give you factual data proving it…
…
NO
…
you “are” clueless…a political claim of some illusion doesnt make scientific evidence…
…
sci⋅ence /ˈsaɪəns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sahy-uhns] Show IPA
Use science in a Sentence
See web results for science
See images of science
–noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
…
…
face it…in order for global warming to be real…you need a body of facts to support it…and that just doesnt exist..but all that shows is that you libtards that claim it does are ignorant lemmings…
…
now there’s the cliff…run and jump over…its your destiny!!
Rico,
Your attempt to equate the money generated from quantum mechanics, to the money generated by AGW is just rich, and completely exposes your willful ignorance of a hyped up, faux industry driven by emotion to that of a sound, science-proven industry that is not responsible for a UN panel, and a former failed VP, attempting to alter the worlds wealth. Your post also had the feel of a Robert Gibbs press conference, so well done. You did evoke a chuckle.
sergio dropoff
Which they did. There is now a consensus in the scientific community that Global Warming is indeed anthropogenic. The ones they have not convinced are the laypeople, which is hardly surprising since the laypeople do not take part in scientific debates. Not only are they not generally interested, they don’t usually have the education to know what the debate is about, hence the term “laypeople”. To demonstrate this, let’s try an experiment.
BULL SHIITE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ
it does not take a scientist to see through this scam go back to berkley kid you are a mind numbed robot who perceives him self to be smart while actually being a fool!
cluster
quantum mechanics ya de ya……..the whole freon phase out which began a large part of this agw scam is bogus.DuPont had the patent for ALL refrigerants, about 5 years before it’s expiration guess what? wow this stuff is bad for the atmosphere, LETS DEVELOP an ALTERNATIVE which we will patent.
FOLLOW the MONEY
algore
BWWWAAAAA HA HA HA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbLK4RZDdzI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7VUg7nG3lw&NR=1
what the aussies think
For the rapidly increasing number of us who believe that AGW is little more than a scheme by bullying eco-fascists to deprive us of our liberty, by big government to spread its controlling tentacles into every aspect our lives, and scheming industrialists such as Al Gore to enrich themselves through carbon trading, this principled act by Australia’s Carbon Five is fantastic news.
Sergei, you sometimes sound fairly rational and dedicated to at least the appearance of fairness and objectivity, and then you spout some total nonsense that blows the whole image to pieces.
No, sweetie, there is NOT a “… a consensus in the scientific community that Global Warming is indeed anthropogenic.” And no, it is completely false that “.. (T)he ones they have not convinced are the laypeople…”
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. You could not be more wrong. Do your own research instead of just parroting Liberal lies. Not only have serious and credible SCIENTISTS been questioning the science behind the prounouncements of the AGW proponents from Day 1, as time goes on more and more previously supportive scientists have moved away from the theory and come to the conclusion that there are simply no objective repeatable scientific data to back up the conclusions reached by the AGW crowd.
Real science is repeatable. In real science, the experiment is outlined, and the data revealed, so others can attempt to recreate the experiment and see if they come to the same conclusions. These guys have been refusing to give information on what they have done to arrive at their conclusions, have refused to provide the formulae and other data on which they based their work. Why? Well, one of them excused his secretiveness by saying it was because the other guys just wanted to disprove his conclusions. Uh, yeah—that’s what SCIENTISTS do. They have to examine the work, deconstruct it, make it show the same results over and over again, expose it to rigorous testing. Even in grade school, the teacher does not just accept an answer in math class—she demands “Show your work”. And the ANG crowd has not.
Real science is not a matter of ‘consensus’. Real science is not a matter of numbers of people who vote yea or nay–it is what is there, no matter what the opinions of many may say. And the actual, objective, empirical proof of just how carbon dioxide affects climate, while it may exist, has yet to be discovered. Right now, its validity is much like the theory that it is the trees waving their branches around that make the wind blow—it just SEEMS logical.
It is always intereting to see you hit one of your ideological walls, and how, when you do, you are immovable in youe allegiance to that particular belief.
But what you overlook in your zeal is that AWG is a belief system far more than a science, and that its promotion is far more driven by profit and political power than by science.
cluster: Your attempt to equate the money generated from quantum mechanics, to the money generated by AGW is just rich, and completely exposes your willful ignorance of a hyped up, faux industry driven by emotion to that of a sound, science-proven industry that is not responsible for a UN panel, and a former failed VP, attempting to alter the worlds wealth.
If you could only appreciate the irony in that statement.
Your post also had the feel of a Robert Gibbs press conference, so well done.
That one too. My advice: stay tuned.
You did evoke a chuckle.
Same here. But hey, there’s nothing wrong with that. And it is a holiday weekend. So much the better!
If you could only appreciate the irony in that statement.
Sigh; if only ANY of us could appreciate ANY of your constant references to “irony”, we might appreciate your contributions (or lack therof) here; but, sadly, we don’t. Feel free to keep trying, though.
There’s a good reason why you shouldn’t get your information from late night comedy shows. The “thirty thousand scientists” mentioned by Mr. Coleman (whose scientific credentials consist of a BA in Journalism) are the 30,000 alleged signatories of the Oregon Petition, which defined “scientist” as “anyone with at least a Bachelor of Science degree, no matter what the subject”. Scientific American estimated in 2001 that about 200 of the original signatories (it was recirculated in ‘07) were real climate scientists who still agreed with it. Moreover, the petition called on the United States to reject the Kyoto Protocol. For Coleman to claim that these people support him in his suit against Al Gore is an obvious lie, as further evidenced by the fact that the clip you linked to is from mid-2008 and Coleman still hasn’t sued.
Additionally, I take umbrage at your description of male Shiites as bulls. This implies that female Shiites are cows, which for uncertain reasons is clearly racist. You have my assurances as an expert in the region that Shiites tend to be quite svelte.
As you say, “Show your work.” Real scientists cite things. It is not enough to simply claim that there is no consensus, it is not even enough to claim it loudly, you need to actually provide a source that indicates it. Here’s an example:
This is why the hockey stick is no longer accepted: there were difficulties repeating it, and Mann didn’t want to release the specific data he had used (note though that other data sets are easily accessible to all climate scientists). This is not, however, true of global warming in general. There, experiments have been repeated, results and data have been released, with the result being that there is now a consensus in the scientific community, as indicated above.
Part of science is intellectual humility, and part of intellectual humility is accepting that if everyone except for you is saying something, and you have made your case again and again and failed to convince any of them, then the problem may be with you. You don’t have to change your beliefs, but once the opinion has been roundly rejected you should stop trying to force it on everyone. A debate that is lost is lost. There may be another one if significant further information becomes available, but for now it is over.
Actually, the Stefan-Boltzmann law was formulated based on experimental evidence in 1879, and did not receive a theoretical foundation until 1884. It was first applied to carbon dioxide in a way relevant to the greenhouse effect by Svante Arrhenius at the end of that century, and first applied with the correct values by Knut Ångström in 1900.
SA
This implies that female Shiites are cows, which for uncertain reasons is clearly racist.
BULL SHIITE!!