Sagan's "Baloney Kit" Generates Debate

Interesting banter going on between some alarmists and myself on the old "Baloney Detection Kit" post; come on by and read it for yourself. Liberals pay attention when you use the words of someone like Galileo, Carl Sagan or Jon Stewart to insult their orthodoxy. And they don't like it. So there's no end to the contorting required to preserve belief in their little sphere of green harmony.

Finally, some DEBATE! Since Al Gore won't debate, it's nice that his minions will, though most do so anonymously.

Jo Nova Responds to New Scientist's "Denier-gate" Story

Alarmists at the New Scientist, sensing their reputations are in big trouble following all the recent mounting scandals (including Climategate), have decided to respond by creating "Denier-gate" out of thin air (as if they hadn't done that years ago). However, Jo Nova does a phenomenal job of parrying the ad hominem attacks against climate skepticism by turning the tables on the global warming cultists. She keeps bringing them back to the fundamental question: Is CO2 in its current quantity within our atmosphere warming the planet? Let's talk evidence, not "debate's over," not bluster, swearing, name-calling, etc.

The answer from alarmists is: "DENIER!! How can you question the CONSENSUS? The debate's over!" Get the picture? Where is the scientific debate?!? Without the name-calling?

And spot the appearance of the mythical “HUGE body of evidence”. Can anyone at New Scientist find that one mystery paper with empirical evidence showing that carbon causes major warming? Just ONE? That’s major warming, not minor. And that’s empirical, i.e., by observation, not by simulation.

This is the paragraph where New Scientist proves it has become Non Scientist:

“If we are going to judge the truth of claims on the behavior of those making them, it seems only fair to look at the behavior of a few of those questioning the scientific consensus. There are many similar examples we did not include. We leave readers to draw their own conclusions about who to trust.”

Alarm bells are ringing from Galileo’s grave. We’re trying to figure out if the world is warming due to man-made carbon right? New Scientist’s method is not to look at the evidence, but to look at the behavior of the sceptics. Did you see the black hole of ad hominem that this once esteemed journal just stepped into? Logic and reason were reduced in a flash to a naked singularity. Follow its reasoning through the black hole, and you don’t emerge on the other side.

Did you see the black hole of ad hominem that this once esteemed journal just stepped into?

Who to trust indeed? Let’s trust people who can reason, and scientists who don’t hide their data. It doesn’t matter how “sceptics behave”; it matters whether the data can be independently analyzed and interpreted; whether the conclusions are robust. But, since the data is g-o-n-e , no one can verify anything. So in a way, it does come down to “trust”: In the new quasi-religious form of science, you have to trust those who hold the global data. Isn’t postmodern “science” an awful lot like the old religions?

[From New Scientist becomes Non Scientist « JoNova]

Anchorage: "Coldest Summer EVER"

Wait, I thought Alaska was just experiencing a "normal cool" summer?

First, we were promised a warm winter at the hands of global warming. It didn't happen; as a matter of fact, the opposite happened. Then we were told that global warming would rush spring, the west was warming too fast, and that the cold spell we've been experiencing was merely "brief" and would soon be replaced by more warming. Poof! Like a dissipating CO2 cloud, these predictions vanished into thin air after an antithetical reality set in. Alarmist climatologists, however, held on to hope that they could recover their rapidly shrinking reputations.

Other former alarmist scientists have COMPLETELY REVERSED THEIR ONCE FIERY BELIEFS, and now they face the same persecution that they once doled out to their braver colleagues, who courageously stood up, cried foul, and were lambasted for it (and still are).

Some climatologists, however, saw the writing on the wall and tried to issue revisionist predictions on the climate (La Nina would now "mask" global warming for 10-20 years, LOL!). This was all done in an attempt to save face, protect reputations, and institute damage control, while still keeping the pipe-dream of CO2-induced warming alive.

Even this article below engages in all sorts of damage control (I've bolded those portions)! We see “La Nina” below, as well as the oft-sited “IPCC.” This is what alarmists do to keep the AGW fart aloft; they throw around "PC" words (“IPCC” and “consensus”) that are designed to explain-away contrary empirical and scientific evidence and silence legitimate debate and criticism. They even attempt to hold on to the already thoroughly debunked "stronger hurricane" theory that Al Gore loves so much.

Many of the original IPCC member scientists are actually skeptics and have denounced the IPCC’s reports, and there’s NO SUCH RULE THAT A "CONSENSUS" IN SCIENCE IS DEEMED UNASSAILABLE (real science has nothing to do with any consensus). Don’t believe that maverick thinkers are usually proven correct in science? What about Einstein, Darwin, Hawking, Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, and the list goes on? These are all scientists who bucked the consensus of their day.

Other former alarmist scientists have COMPLETELY REVERSED THEIR ONCE FIERY BELIEFS, and now they face the same persecution that they once doled out to their braver colleagues, who courageously stood up, cried foul, and were lambasted for it (and still are).

And so we see that this summer is continuing the COOLING TREND we've seen over the past 10 years, which means global warming IS NOT OCCURRING AND HAS NOT OCCURRED, especially as a result of CO2 (CO2 has gone up while temperatures have gone down).

What is clear is that the Earth warms and cools within the bounds of natural climate cycles THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ARROGANT HUMANS who think they can somehow affect this overwhelmingly powerful planet. We are nothing to this planet except another insignificant species. Even if we destroyed ourselves with every last nuclear weapon on Earth, the Earth would eventually recover and life would go on (our Earth's archeological record has shown this to occur many times naturally).

Gloomy summer headed toward infamy

CHILLY: Anchorage could hit 65 degrees for fewest days on record.

By GEORGE BRYSON

Published: July 24th, 2008 12:10 AM
Last Modified: July 24th, 2008 04:56 PM

The coldest summer ever? You might be looking at it, weather folks say.

Right now the so-called summer of '08 is on pace to produce the fewest days ever recorded in which the temperature in Anchorage managed to reach 65 degrees.

That unhappy record was set in 1970, when we only made it to the 65-degree mark, which many Alaskans consider a nice temperature, 16 days out of 365.

This year, however -- with the summer more than half over -- there have been only seven 65-degree days so far. And that's with just a month of potential "balmy" days remaining and the forecast looking gloomy.

****

So are all bets off on global warming? Hardly, scientists say. Climate change is a function of long-term trends, not single summers or individual hurricanes.

Last year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that it's "unequivocal" the world is warming, considering how 11 of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past 13 years.

So what's going on in Alaska, which also posted a fairly frigid winter?

LA NINA

Dr. Richard Lindzen, Julian Morris debate Bill Nye, Heidi Cullen

This was on CNN two years ago, before we had the precipitous drop in the global mean temperature by 0.7 degrees this past winter, which caused alarmist scientists to invent "climate revisionism"--proclaiming that we'll have 10-20 years of cool temperatures caused by La Nina, which they say will "mask global warming." (LOL!)

Note all the images that CNN chooses to show behind the debaters: polar bears, floods, etc. Same old hysterical, fear-mongering crap - different day!

Dr. Richard Lindzen is an Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT and an "outlier" scientist (as Gore calls him for his disbelief in global warming), and Bill Nye...we'll he's "The Science Guy"--how could one question such credentials? Julian Morris is obviously one of those pesky, skeptical Britons who are making the alarmists very angry.

Watch this and remember that this was two years ago (and one year before we had the record breaking winter of 2007-08). Let's see--MIT professor or Bill Nye and Heidi Cullen? Yep, I believe the MIT professor. Remember Galileo! The maverick in science is often correct--not the "consensus."

Cullen mentions the IPCC (as all alarmists do) and "consensus," but is she aware that Dr. Lindzen was on the freakin' IPCC? Lindzen has consistently stated that the IPCC's real position on AGW has been warped by political hacks.

I used to like Bill Nye in my younger days; now I realize that he's susceptible to brainwashing and politics like everyone else. Heidi Cullen? Why didn't Larry King ask her about her desire to revoke professional credentials to all meteorologists who "deny" manmade global warming? Also, note all the images that CNN chooses to show behind the debaters: polar bears, floods, etc. Same old hysterical, fear-mongering crap! It's easy to tell from those images and Larry King's tone what CNN et al think about Dr. Lindzen and Julian Morris. It's the same story with most other media outlets, sadly.

Here are the notes from mdhenshaw's youtube page:

Richard Lindzen was on Larry King Live a few nights ago discussing Global Warming with a panel of experts that included Bill Nye the Science Guy. A TV personality and former sketch comedy member against an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT. Julian Morris and Lindzen make excellent points for which the alarmists have no answer. It's the same old song and dance, they always mention the "consensus" and the IPCC report.

GASP! Swim to the North Pole this summer!

I’m wondering if any of the sheep out there are digging into the guts of this article and exposing the stupidity of it, instead of just accepting the media’s incessant Chicken Little routine. When I first saw this article, I said, “really?” Then as I began to read it, I realized it was more of the same drivel we’ve been seeing for years on "manmade" climate change, though the hysteria level is definitely being stretched to new heights.

First of all, melting ice? I’ve covered that subject here on quite a few occasions.

Why are the histrionics of alarmists reaching epic proportions? Because they’re losing the programming battle. The battle to indoctrinate the masses into believing there’s manmade global warming is becoming Custer’s fiasco at Little Big Horn, and deniers like me are the stubborn Native Americans. So the claims become more and more shrill and preposterous as time goes by. Also, look at where this newspaper is published; it’s in the U.K., and a recent poll showed just what Britons are thinking about the scam of global warming. So, the headline is designed to jolt us deniers and embolden the alarmists into screaming, “See, I told you so.” But let’s go further and fight hyperbole with cold logic.

Never mind the wheezing headline, which is so very misleading. Check the VERY FIRST SENTENCE in the article. Ice is melting at the North Pole for “THE FIRST TIME IN HUMAN HISTORY?” Really? I wonder if any layman out there can find the huge problem with this first claim before I even pour out my thoughts. If one examines the article and reads my past posts here on melting ice then one can see some of the issues, and you needn’t be a climatologist or scientist to understand. Any time a ridiculous claim like this is made by someone, one should always first ask, “What is the baseline?” By that I mean that there must be some standard or starting point by which they’re making a comparison. Statistically, there should be an average or mean level of ice over a given period, and the longer the period used for the baseline, the more accurate the assertion will be once a comparison is made. They’ve been visually “measuring” the ice at the poles since we’ve had satellites, which, as you know, have been in stationary orbit above the poles since Lucy first learned to walk upright (yes, mockery definitely intended). I posted already on the statistical stupidity of taking a 30-year period of the Earth’s 4.5 billion year history as a baseline and making stupid climate pronouncements based on that VERY, VERY SMALL period of time. Heck, it would still be a stupid comparison if we used only the years comprising human history (from the Paleolithic – 2.5 million years ago), which is a brief moment in the Earth’s total history. Using a 30-year period as a baseline would be a statistical no-no to any real scientist or statistician, unless those professionals need to KEEP the $1.7B in federal climate research grants coming in! My assertion is that polar ice has melted and reformed at least thousands of times in the history of the Earth, and I mean FAR BEFORE the Industrial Revolution.

Next, when you picture all the ice at the North Pole melting (which is implied by this article’s headline), what do you think? They did use the word “entirely,” which I take to mean ALL OF IT. I pictured that you could swim or boat literally up to the very pole—the very top of the Earth and grin up at the North Star. Or do they just mean melting in that general vicinity? Check the graphic and notice how they say that “melting ice COULD match last year’s record.” Monkeys COULD also fly out of my butt. The word "could" in these fear-mongering articles should always set off an alarm in your brain, because it also implies that it "could not" happen. Again, review some of the failed predictions on climate change we've had recently, including the dire hurricane forecasts that have failed to transpire, even though Al Gore predicted that Hurricane Katrina was directly caused by global warming; if we're still warming...where have all the hurricanes been over the past three years? Oh, I know...cyclones and hurricanes have been hitting other continents--JUST AS THEY ALWAYS HAVE!

They let slip another fact. All the ice that they alarmingly reported in previous years as having melted REFORMED LAST YEAR DURING A RECORD-SETTING WINTER! I think the reasoning is that because it’s “new ice” it will melt faster in the summer than “old ice.” So this is another “scary” prediction on climate change, and we’ve seen a lot of those predictions over the past year—most of which turned out to be CRAP! I’m now making a prediction...many or most of these manmade climate change predictions WILL ALSO TURN OUT TO BE CRAP. Let’s see what happens to the polar ice at the end of this summer and then what happens next winter, when some climatologists say the Earth will be very cold due to the masking of global warming by La Nina (another farcical assertion). Remember Galileo's opponents! They devised elaborate models to explain the movements of the heavens to counter the "denier's" theory that the Sun was the center of the known universe...not the Earth. Was the maverick correct, or was the consensus?

So, let’s say that the ice is going to melt all the way up to the North Pole at 90 degrees North latitude. Can we really say it’s the FIRST TIME EVER IN HUMAN HISTORY or that it’s even a bad thing if it does happen? Remember the Little Climate Optimum—an inconvenient truth that alarmists want you to forget. Our vast history is littered with climate changes and shifts, and all of them came BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.

Exclusive: No ice at the North Pole | Independent

It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year.

The disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, making it possible to reach the Pole sailing in a boat through open water, would be one of the most dramatic – and worrying – examples of the impact of global warming on the planet. Scientists say the ice at 90 degrees north may well have melted away by the summer.

"From the viewpoint of science, the North Pole is just another point on the globe, but symbolically it is hugely important. There is supposed to be ice at the North Pole, not open water," said Mark Serreze of the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado.

If it happens, it raises the prospect of the Arctic nations being able to exploit the valuable oil and mineral deposits below these a bed which have until now been impossible to extract because of the thick sea ice above.

Seasoned polar scientists believe the chances of a totally ice-free North Pole this summer are greater than 50:50 because the normally thick ice formed over many years at the Pole has been blown away and replaced by huge swathes of thinner ice formed over a single year.

This one-year ice is highly vulnerable to melting during the summer months and satellite data coming in over recent weeks shows that the rate of melting is faster than last year, when there was an all-time record loss of summer sea ice at the Arctic.

Hansen: Put oil execs on trial?!

Before I go any further, let me just say that I AM IN NO WAY AFFILIATED WITH ANY OIL INTERESTS. The only way I’m affiliated with “big oil” is as a consumer—and a pissed off one, but that’s only because of the outrageous gas prices that everyone else is suffering through.

The punk-ass, so-called “Doctor” James Hansen of NASA is at it again. Since he tries to play it off like he’s an unassailable government representative who simply cares about the common folk, please read through my previous post on this “illustrious giant of climate science.” Notice a common thread present in the challenges of all these fear-mongering “scientists.” They all want to shut down dissent and debate, and the reasoning for turning off debate is that “there’s no time left—we have to act now!” And they’re not at all interested in the increasing federal grants to study climate change—no! Why would they care about that?

They also consistently accuse every dissenter or denier (including credentialed, respected scientists) of being “in bed with big oil,” which is just laughable. There are literally THOUSANDS of scientists out there right now who think that all this manmade climate change junk is the stupidest crap they’ve ever heard, but they’re keeping quiet because of creeps like Hansen, Gore, and Cullen. Similar to Hansen, Heidi Cullen of the Weather Channel (whose founder—John Coleman—feels global warming is utter baloney and a sham) says that all non-believing meteorologists should lose their professional credentials. Here we see that Hansen wants non-believers put on trial. Other liberal believers simply want conservative climate realists to die. Scientists who speak up are being ignored or ridiculed. It’s Galileo all over again.

Look people, even the founder of Greenpeace believes THERE IS NO MANMADE WARMING!!!

But these alarmo-fascists still believe in their pipe-dream, even though the temperatures have not risen along with CO2 levels in 10-years (if you accept their temperature baseline), and that’s with ever-increasing CO2 levels. Also, CO2 (even in its present amounts) is a minor greenhouse gas compared to the volume of water and methane in our atmosphere. The bottom line is that manmade global warming is a farce; it is a lie. This past record-setting cold, snowy, icy winter is empirical evidence that mirrors the scientific data out there; I can site empirical evidence, because the alarmists certainly do whenever there’s a summer heat wave, drought, flood, hurricane, tornado, or other natural disaster. Their partners in the media also quickly highlight ridiculous numbers of things attributed to global warming, and those incalculable stories alone are probably responsible for making a mockery of their climate cause. In short, me thinks they protest too much!

I love how they’re now saying that 10-years of cooling (from La Nina) will mask global warming! LOL! These guys all know the myth is drying up; people aren’t buying it, especially in the U.K. Alarmists and climate profiteers are panicking because we aren’t all running around like Chicken Little.

Yes, this is supposedly America—the land of freedom (including freedom of speech); you can only speak freely, however, if you agree to speak their propaganda. Otherwise, you must hush your mouth and march in lock-step, you pathetic sheep.

Put oil firm chiefs on trial, says leading climate change scientist | Guardian:

James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.

He is also considering personally targeting members of Congress who have a poor track record on climate change in the coming November elections. He will campaign to have several of them unseated. Hansen's speech to Congress on June 23 1988 is seen as a seminal moment in bringing the threat of global warming to the public's attention. At a time when most scientists were still hesitant to speak out, he said the evidence of the greenhouse gas effect was 99% certain, adding "it is time to stop waffling".

Global warming taking a 10-year vacation!

On a cool May afternoon in 2008, an alarmed climate alarmist schemes:

"Wait! 100-years of global warming was more or less erased in one year! We need a way out of this debacle; our reputations are in jeopardy! I've got it! We'll just say that global warming is taking a decade hiatus...perfect! Surely the temperatures will begin migrating towards warmth again within a decade; all good sine waves eventually head back towards the positive. Then we'll be back in the climate-consensus-manipulation business."

We've seen this coming folks; I've already written about how they've been claiming that the cooling we've seen is caused by global warming OR that La Nina is driving the cooling trend and "masking" warming (they'll deny until they're blue in the face that solar weather has anything to do with our climate). But few in the media seem willing to entertain the idea that AGW is a bunch of bunk.

Everything possible is being dreamed up or manipulated to prop up the notion of human-emitted CO2 as the "boogeyman" of our climate. Their little theory is blowing away like a fart in the wind (or at least CO2 in the wind), and we've talked here about why they must salvage this baloney at all costs. Now, there is far too much money at stake, and far too many "experts" are on record as espousing this completely baseless drivel (in science and politics, REPUTATIONS ALSO EQUAL MONEY).

IN ONE YEAR (2007-08 winter season), the temperatures moderated in the reverse direction (below the questionable "long-term average" baseline THEY established); the global mean this winter was 0.7°C below the "long term" average (I use their words "long-term" loosely, because there's nothing statistically "LONG-TERM" about how they came up with their baseline).

Need I mention again that the temperature (against their baseline) has ONLY FALLEN since the proclaimed 1998 high (when El Nino was supposed to be warming the Earth), while CO2 keeps going up? This means (again if you believe their baseline-and why should you when they're wrong about everything else?) that our temperatures are now at 1930s levels-with AN EVER INCREASING CO2 SATURATION! So, the very basis of their theory is done--IT'S SHOT! Therefore, enter La Nina to save the day. We must keep the faithful believing in the faith! There MUST be a reason global warming is being "masked"! LOL! So many "consensus experts" can't be wrong.

Just remember, when Galileo published his theories about the Sun being the center of the known universe (opposing the Earth-centric theory espoused by the Roman-Catholic Church), other thinkers of the day produced intricate, complex mathematical models by which we could continue propping up the church-backed myth that the Earth was the center of the solar system, such that it would jibe with the observed movements of the heavens. Galileo's theory was perfect; it easily explained the movements of the heavenly bodies in terms of elliptical or circular orbits, but it also required one to accept the notion (now known fact) that the Sun was the center of the solar system.

This was heresy at the time! Galileo was threatened, branded with "D" for "denier" or "skeptic," if you will; he dared to poke the consensus opinion (the "smart" people) of the day with a stick. Galileo was also eventually silenced and forced to recant his "heretical" counter-theory, eventually vindicated only after his death. Sounds a lot like what's going on right now with the consensus-deemed "unassailable theory" of manmade global warming. It's utter nonsense...it's in danger of being totally exposed. Advocates and alarmists aren't happy with this recent turn of cold and snowy events, so it's time for "shields-up!"

Ocean Cooling to Briefly Halt Global Warming, Researchers Say

April 30 (Bloomberg) -- Parts of North America and Europe may cool naturally over the next decade, as shifting ocean currents temporarily blunt the global-warming effect caused by mankind, Germany's Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences said. Average temperatures in areas such as California and France may drop over the next 10 years, influenced by colder flows in the North Atlantic, said a report today by the institution based in Kiel, Germany. Temperatures worldwide may stabilize in the period.

``Natural variations over the next 10 years might be heading in the cold direction,'' Wood said. ``If you run the model long enough, eventually global warming will win.''

The world will become at least 2.5 degrees Celsius warmer by 2100, compared with the pre-industrial period, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said in March.

Steven Milloy of junkscience.com had a terrific write-up on this very subject (he beat me to the punch :D):

Junk Science: The Great Global Warming Race

Can global warming's vested interests close the deal on greenhouse gas regulation before the public wises up to their scam? A new study indicates alarmist concern and a need to explain away the lack of actual global warming. Researchers belonging to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, reported in Nature (May 1) that after adjusting their climate model to reflect actual sea surface temperatures of the last 50 years, "global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations ... temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming."

You got that? IPCC researchers project no global warming over the next decade because of Mother Nature. Although the result seems stunning in that it came from IPCC scientists who have always been in the tank for manmade global warming, it's not really surprising since the notion of manmade climate change has never lived up to its billing.

The bottom line of global warming - and that is why so many are behind it - is that its many vested interests are on the verge of a financial and political bonanza, something that scientific facts and climatic realities are likely only to spoil.

So when global temperature doesn't behave as predicted, excuses and explanations must be found to prevent the almost-mature golden goose from being roasted for dinner. The spin on the Nature study provided by its authors to The New York Times is that, "We're learning that [natural] climate variability is important and can mask the effects of human-induced global change. In the end this gives more confidence in the long-term projections."

Did Dr. Gray and CSU reach compromise on warming lie?

So, it sounds to me as if CSU had initially intimidated Dr. Gray, famed hurricane forecaster, for speaking his mind about the global warming lie, but it appears they've come to some behind-the-scenes agreement that requires him to keep his mouth shut about the intimidation he suffered. Is the quid pro quo that he keeps his position and continues his work?

I'm glad there are scientists like Dr. Gray, Dr. Christy, Dr. Reiter, and Dr. Lindzen out there who are brave enough to speak up about the AGW myth. Remember...Galileo was eventually silenced as well by religious authorities; now, the new religion is global warming, and its authorities are attempting to silence the few, brave voices willing to state the truth--global warming is one of the greatest scams (maybe the greatest in history) ever perpetrated on mankind; it must be the greatest in history, because it's a worldwide phenomenon of deceit, thanks to the flow of misinformation through the Internet and other electronic media venues.

Hurricane Expert Says His Global Warming Views Haven't Affected University's Support

William Gray, a professor emeritus at Colorado State, is a skeptic of man-made global warming and once said that pro-global warming scientists are "brainwashing our children." An article Monday by the Houston Chronicle that was cited by FOX News claimed that Gray's views had prompted the university to stop promoting his renowned annual North Atlantic hurricane forecasts. The Chronicle quoted a memo Gray sent the university last year accusing it of trying to stifle his views on global warming, but Gray issued a statement Tuesday saying that his status at the university hadn't changed.

EPA scientists pressured to bias their results

Still question whether politics is currently corrupting science? A usual tactic often employed by these political elements is to recognize the truth and then claim the opposite: here, the NYT is telling us that politics is corrupting science, EXCEPT that the boogeyman is portrayed as CONSERVATIVE politics that is choosing to ignore “consensus science.” (Funny, because, right now, conservative elites are jumping on the bandwagon just like liberals.)

As a non-consensus scientist, let me state this fact:

There is NO SUCH THING AS CONSENSUS IN SCIENCE! Science DOES NOT work like an L.A. street gang. (Google “Galileo” or Google “Darwin” to read about mavericks who resisted the consensus—and were RIGHT!)

This article couldn't be more poignant at pointing out how politics is currently attempting to corrupt science for its own ends; right now, the lie of manmade global warming has become the centerpiece of worldwide climate politics and environmental movements (not climate science). It's surprising to see the AP publishing this rather frank admission, when they have been guilty of propagandizing this issue themselves for years.

Basically, these EPA scientists are saying, through a survey instrument (which they were initially told not to answer), that federal politicians have been trying to coax and intimidate certain results or answers out of the scientists, so that the politicians would be free to scream “consensus science” when confronted with debate and argument over proposed U.S. and U.N. environmental policies—policies that will cost you money and will increase the power of the politicians involved. In the process, many scientists have begun to wake up and realize that they're corrupting an institution that they've been charged with protecting—the unbiased, untainted scientific search for truth.

REAL climate science is currently under attack. Radical political and environmental elements have seized an opportunity in the theory of human-induced climate change—a theory that, regardless of the way it's portrayed by Al Gore and the media, is still not proven beyond scientific doubt. On the contrary, there are many problems

More monikers: Flat Earthers!

I guess the warmaholics got the maximum use out of declaring us AGW skeptics as "Holocaust deniers." Now, we've been labeled as "flat earthers" in an attempt to silence us, make us seem stupid, and put us at imagined odds with the "rest of the world."

Of course, I can easily reverse this, because believing in manmade climate change is like believing in a flat earth. It's like believing that the Earth is the center of the universe, whereby we must invent elaborate models so that the observed movements of heavenly bodies continue to make sense according to our beliefs. In this case, we have to create elaborate models to keep the theory of AGW afloat.

Galileo suffered as we deniers are now; in those days, the Roman Catholic Church tormented him. Today, the Church of Global Warming with Al Gore as its head is tormenting any who dare say, "nope, it's BS."

Again, we come back to debate based on science, which we've been denied. No one wants debate; they want silence--our silence and conformity.

CNN: Climate Conference Attendees Are Like Flat Earthers | NewsBusters.org:

O'BRIEN: Fagin teaches journalism and writes on the environment. He says skeptics have changed their tune as evidence started stacking up against them. A decade ago they denied global warming even existed.

FAGIN: They're getting closer to the scientific reality, although they're certainly not there yet. The only way that they could be right is if there was some kind of grand conspiracy.

O'BRIEN: But that is what Heartland desperately wants us to believe. Even the Flat Earth Society didn't fold its tent in 1493.

Miles O'Brien, CNN, New York.

BTW...O'Brien is showing his ignorance, as the FES was still functioning in 2001. Putz...do your research!

Consensus: "Teach AGW to our children, damn it!"

With all the numerous problems permeating the theory of AGW (including the bitter ass cold we're experiencing worldwide this winter), I can't believe this is happening. It's California? Oh, I can believe it now...

San Jose Mercury News - Bill would require California's science curriculum to cover climate change:

Some say the science on global warming isn't clear, while others worry the bill would inject environmental propaganda into classrooms.

I hope they also cover other historical examples of the actions of "consensus" zealots, such as those in the consensus who nearly killed Galileo for daring to say that the Earth was NOT the center of the Universe. He had to actually denounce what he had written to keep from being labeled a heretic, and all of this sounds remarkably close to the persecution deniers like myself face today.