Tom Nelson Dissects ClimateGate 2 For All To See

Tom Nelson, along with the others I have mentioned, is making clear the utterly abject fraud known as ClimateGate.

He is poring through, as we speak, the latest batch of leaked (NOT HACKED!) emails from the folks who tried to game the system.

Please visit Tom's site, and tell him who sent you!

Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Ben Santer, Tim Osborn, et. al.: you will all be revealed for your roles in promoting the EPIC FAIL that is global warming/climate change.

Climategate Bombshell: Did U.S. Gov't Help Hide Climate Data?

Climategate Bombshell: Did U.S. Gov't Help Hide Climate Data?
By Maxim Lott

Published December 16, 2011

| FoxNews.com

University of East Anglia

The Climatic Research Unit, a key climate science facility at the School of Environmental Sciences, a part of the University of East Anglia in the UK.

Are your tax dollars helping hide global warming data from the public? Internal emails leaked as part of “Climategate 2.0” indicate the answer may be "Yes."

The original Climategate emails -- correspondence stolen from servers at a research facility in the U.K. and released on the Internet in late 2009 -- shook up the field of climate research. Now a new batch posted in late November to a Russian server shows that scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit refused to share their U.S. government-funded data with anyone they thought would disagree with them.

Professor Phil Jones asked a colleague to delete e-mails relating to a report by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Making that case in 2009, the then-head of the Research Unit, Dr. Phil Jones, told colleagues repeatedly that the U.S. Department of Energy was funding his data collection -- and that officials there agreed that he should not have to release the data.

“Work on the land station data has been funded by the U.S. Dept of Energy, and I have their agreement that the data needn’t be passed on. I got this [agreement] in 2007,” Jones wrote in a May 13, 2009, email to British officials, before listing reasons he did not want them to release data.

Two months later, Jones reiterated that sentiment to colleagues, saying that the data "has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

A third email from Jones written in 2007 echoes the idea: "They are happy with me not passing on the station data," he wrote.

The emails have outraged climate-change skeptics who say they can't trust climate studies unless they see the raw data -- and how it has been adjusted.

"In every endeavor of science, making your work replicable by others is a basic tenet of proof,” Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and climate change blogger, told FoxNews.com. “If other scientists cannot replicate your work, it brings your work into question.”

Is the Department of Energy to blame? The Climategate emails reveal correspondence only between Jones and his colleagues -- not between him and the DoE.

"What’s missing," Watts said, "is a ... directive from DoE that they should withhold station data gathered under their grant. The email may be there, but ... still under lock and key.”

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, wants that key. He recently filed Freedom of Information acts with the DoE, requesting the emails they exchanged with Jones.

"So far no administration department has bothered to respond, indicating they … believe the time bought with stonewalling might just get them off the hook for disclosure," Horner told FoxNews.com.

"Not with us, it won't," he said.

The Department of Energy has until December 29 before it must legally respond to Horner's request.

When contacted by FoxNews.com, DoE spokesman Damien LaVera declined to comment.

However, climate change researcher and blogger Steve McIntyre forwarded FoxNews.com an email exchange from 2005 in which climate scientist Warwick Hughes asked an official at a DOE lab if he could get the data that the government paid Jones to collect.

"I am asking you to provide me with the following data … DoE has been funding [the data] since the 1980s," Hughes noted in his request.

But Tom Boden, of the DOE's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, told Hughes at the time that the DOE itself did not have the data, and that "you will need to contact Phil [Jones] directly. I spoke today with the DOE program manager who indicated Phil was not obligated under the conditions of past or present DOE proposal awards to provide these items."

McIntyre said he himself later had a similar exchange with the DOE, after which "I suggested that they amend this as a condition of further financing."

"I was surprised that the new emails show them actively taking the opposite approach," he added.

Asked about the connection with the Department of Energy, Simon Dunford, a spokesman for Jones’ Climatic Research Unit, told FoxNews.com that Jones has changed his tune since the emails were made public.

"Prof Jones has already accepted he should have been more open, and has since made all the station data referred to in these emails publicly available," Dunford told FoxNews.com.

Watts said that while much of the data itself is now available, the methods of adjusting it -- statistical modification meant to filter anomalies, "normalize" the data, and potentially highlight certain trends -- remain a secret.

"Much of climate science, in terms of the computer processing that goes on, remains a black box to the outside world. We see the data go in, and we see the data that come out as a finished product -- but we don’t know how they adjust it in between.”

Watts said he would like to be given the adjustment formulas to make his own determination.

"The fact that they are trying to keep people from replicating their studies -- that's the issue," Watts noted. "Replication is the most important tenet of science."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/16/complicit-in-climategate-doe-under-fire/


This is simple: when the investigation focused on the LEAKERS of the emails, that's when you know all the cards are marked.

ClimateGate is a scam,up and down - Three Card Monty would be proud, if they didn't keep chasing him off the block.

Important to remember in your discussions with others - the emails were LEAKED, not "hacked".

Albert "Global Warming's Gonna Make Me Rich, Beyotch!" Gore Tries Throwing Us Under The Bus Once Again

The title lends itself to a little back-story before we get to the good stuff:

Vice President Albert Gore decides to run for the office of the President of the United States back in 2000. The conventional wisdom went that, not only would Gore wipe the floor with failed businessman/former Texas Governor George Walker Bush, he would use him as toilet paper after his victory smorgasboard. Unfortunately, after gaining more votes than his challenger, Gore throws the election, and our country, into the proverbial toilet.

It has been said that, in return for throwing said election, that Gore was offered the chance to become filthy rich by becoming the guru for the utterly failed paradigm known to us all as "Anthropogenic Global Warming". Much like the "pollution credits" that were offered to the large corporations, "carbon credits" would be shared as a commodity, and somehow, "global warming" could be controlled, and he could rake in the bucks.

What could be better, right? Perform "good works" for your country, and profit.

Alas, it was not to be.

Climategate has revealed the truth behind the "settled science"; that truth being that the "scientists" involved with researching the non-existent phenomenon turned "peer review" on its head, hyping any research which bolstered their claims; hiding and actively blocking any research which didn't; withholding data from other scientists attempting to replicate their experiments and actively working to keep their results from the public domain.

Gore, however, will not take the hint that his jig is up.

Along with Bill Nye, The "Science Guy", he has released a video that purports to explain "global warming" in such a way that any high school student can replicate said experiment.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/al-gore-kicks-off-climate-reality-project

Anthony Watts, of Watts Up With That, has debunked his latest effort:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/28/video-analysis-and-scene-replication-suggests-that-al-gores-climate-reality-project-fabricated-their-climate-101-video-simple-experiment/

In related news - Michael Mann is required by law to reveal the data he previously kept hidden by means of chicanery:

http://co2insanity.com/2011/10/04/michael-‘climategate’-mann-suffers-three-legal-blows-in-court-escapade/

Phil Jones was said to nearly suffer from a nervous breakdown while testifying - will Michael Mann manage to eat his own head?

Let me get my popcorn and soda ready.

Warming, NOT? - New York Post

Hey, everyone...haven't updated this for a bit...but here's a good reason for coming back:

‘Warming’ not?

Climate-change theory faces sudden collapse

By MATT PATTERSON

Last Updated: 12:28 AM, August 2, 2011

Posted: 10:29 PM, August 1, 2011

Every day it seems new evidence emerges that the “evidence” for global warming has been exaggerated, manufactured or just plain wrong.
Take the case of Charles Monnett of the US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. On July 18, Monnett -- a longtime poster boy for global-warming orthodoxy -- was put on leave pending an investigation into the “integrity” of his work.
The specifics of the investigation are as yet unclear, but the Associated Press reports on indications that the questioning "has centered on observations that Monnett and fellow researcher Jeffrey Gleason made in 2004 . . . of four dead polar bears floating in the water after a storm. They detailed their observations in an article published two years later in the journal Polar Biology."

Not threatened? The scientist behind the supposed crisis of “drowning polar bears” is now under investigation.

Monnett and Gleason claimed this was the first known observation of polar bears apparently drowning after being forced to swim long distances in the open sea. Naturally, they saw global warming -- which allegedly is shrinking the polar ice caps -- as the culprit. The dead bears, they wrote, “suggest that drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open water periods continues.”
Thanks in large measure to the work of Monnett and Gleason, the polar bear became the official mascot for climate-change alarmism. Images of a lone polar bear perched forlornly on a shrinking ice flow served as efficient propaganda for indoctrinating children; Al Gore used the “polar bears are drowning” meme in his global warming scare-umentary “An Inconvenient Truth.”
And in 2008 the US government officially listed the polar bear as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act.
Now Monnett has been put on “leave” due to “integrity” issues. Great.
It’s easy for greens to dismiss the discrediting of any one researcher. Much more devastating is the recent blow to the computer models whose predictions underlie a wide swath of the so-called “science” of global warming.
The blow comes from a new paper, published in the peer-reviewed journal Remote Sensing, by Drs. Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell. The two scientists compared the predictions about what the atmosphere “should” do to what satellite data showed the atmosphere actually did do during the 18 months before and after warming events since 2000.
They found -- shock! -- that the computer models vastly overestimated the greenhouse effect. Turns out that the Earth is far more capable of equalizing its own temperature than environmentalists would have us believe.
Spencer, a research scientist for the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, explains “The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show . . . There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”
A huge discrepancy between the “data” and “forecasts.” In other words, a huge discrepancy between global-warming theory and actual, observable reality.
Matt Patterson is senior editor at the Capital Research Center.


Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/warming_not_g34wzp6cJ2ux5FkoFdSlbJ

Exclusive: Climatologist Says He Deleted E-mails, But Not at Mann's Behest - Science Insider

by Eli Kintisch on 9 March 2011, 1:44 PM

Investigative files released yesterday to a climate science blog by an unnamed U.S. lawmaker suggest a new twist in the ongoing University of East Anglia climate e-mails saga. Other online writers argue that the files contain evidence that a government climate scientist in May 2008 deliberately deleted e-mails related to a major climate report.

ScienceInsider can reveal that the scientist, Eugene Wahl of the National Climatic Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, admits to deleting the e-mails, which was done during his tenure at Alfred University in New York. That was before he became an employee at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). But online reports on the investigative files have misconstrued a central point, he says, assuming that embattled climatologist Michael Mann of Penn State Univeristy told him to do so. On the contrary, Wahl says, he was responding to a request by East Anglia's Phil Jones that Mann forwarded to him "without any additional comment ... there was no request from [Mann] to delete emails." (The full statement follows.)

The e-mails that Wahl deleted included 2006 correspondence between Wahl and Keith Briffa of East Anglia, and Wahl says they were made public in 2009 as part of the East Anglia e-mails trove. 

The scientists' correspondence was about a report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that they were working on, and for which Briffa was a lead author. In May 2008, University of East Anglia climate scientist Phil Jones, who had been a lead IPCC author the year before, was faced with a U.K. Information Act request for correspondence related to the IPCC report. He asked Mann to delete e-mails "you may have had with Keith," and asked him to forward the same request to Wahl. Mann responded the same day, saying that he would "contact Gene about this ASAP," and he forwarded Jones's note to Wahl. (Mann deleted none of the emails in question, a Penn State investigation found.)

This chain of events has been known since late 2009, with the release of the East Anglia e-mails trove. But yesterday, first on the Climate Audit blog run by Steve McIntyre, parts of a transcript of an interview of Wahl by the Department of Commerce's Inspector General revealed for the first time that Wahl told the IG that he had received Jones's message via Mann.
The interview was part of an investigation the IG tells ScienceInsider is ongoing; on 18 February the IG released a report to Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) on certain aspects of NOAA's role in the East Anglia e-mails imbroglio and subsequent e-mails. That report largely clears NOAA scientists of misconduct, though it does criticize the agency's handling of some Freedom of Information Act requests. It does not mention Wahl by name but does mention Jones's request to delete e-mails. A spokesperson for the IG would not comment on the investigation or the substance of what Wahl told investigators.

Bloggers and online commentators made much of the Wahl quotes yesterday, attacking Mann. The widely read Watts Up With That? blog ran a lengthy item that said, "Sources confirm that a federal inspector has questioned Eugene Wahl and Wahl has confirmed that Mann asked him to delete emails," citing no evidence beyond the forwarded e-mail. A story on The Daily Caller said that the quotes from the Wahl interview showed that the Pennsylvania State investigation, which exonerated Mann of any misconduct, was a "whitewash."

Mann, reached on vacation in Hawaii, said the stories yesterday were "libelous" and false. "They're spreading a lie about me," he said of the Web sites. "This has been known for a year and a half that all I did was forward Phil's e-mail to Eugene." Asked why he sent the e-mail to his colleague, Mann said, "I felt Eugene Wahl had to be aware of this e-mail … it could be used against him. I didn't delete any e-mails and nor did I tell Wahl to delete any e-mails." Why didn't Mann call Wahl to discuss the odd request? "I was so busy. It's much easier to e-mail somebody. No where did I approve of the instruction to destroy e-mails."
Full statement provided to Science Insider from Eugene Wahl below:

The Daily Caller blog yesterday contained an inaccurate story regarding a correspondence that was part of the emails hacked from East Anglia University Climate Research Unit (CRU) in November 2009.

For the record, while I received the email from CRU as forwarded by Dr. Mann, the forwarded message came without any additional comment from Dr. Mann; there was no request from him to delete emails. At the time of the email in May 2008, I was employed by Alfred University, New York. I became a NOAA employee in August 2008.

The emails I deleted while a university employee are the correspondence I had with Dr. Briffa of CRU regarding the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, all of which have been in the public domain since the CRU hack in November 2009. This correspondence has been extensively examined and no misconduct found. As a NOAA employee, I follow agency record retention policies and associated guidance from information technology staff.

Dr. Eugene R. Wahl
March 9, 2011

*This item has been corrected. The original item stated that Wahl's deletion of e-mails was revealed on blogs yesterday; what was revealed was Wahl's explicit admission of receiving Jones's message via Mann. The item also omitted the fact that Jones told Mann to ask Wahl to delete them

Original URL: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/03/exclusive-climatologist-says-he-.html

Okay...first the rebuttal by Chris Horner:

Michael Mann has responded to my piece in The Daily Caller accusing Penn State of whitewashing ClimateGate. Mann’s response is typically off point from the question:
The claim by fossil fuel industry lobbyist Chris Horner in his “Daily Caller” piece that I told Eugene Wahl to delete emails is a fabrication — a lie, and a libelous allegation. My only involvement in the episode in question is that I forwarded Wahl an email that Phil Jones had sent me, which I felt Wahl needed to see. There was no accompanying commentary by me or additional correspondence from me regarding the matter, nor did I speak to Wahl about the matter. This is, in short, a despicable smear that, more than anything else, speaks to the depths of dishonesty of professional climate change deniers like Chris Horner, Marc Morano, Stephen McIntyre, and Anthony Watts.

Please state where I “claim . . . that [Mann] told Eugene Wahl to delete emails,” and also what is libelous, Mr. Mann. If you do the latter, I am happy to retract it.

But, “Wahl says Mann did indeed ask Wahl to destroy records, and Wahl did” doesn’t do it, unless you want to crop off one end of the sentence (“Wahl says”) and replace it with something more appealing to your thesis (an inside joke for those familiar with the whole Hockey Stick saga). Chuckle.

Your allegation is false until you somehow demonstrate otherwise, and your problem lies with the NOAA inspector general whose transcript indicates these events transpired.
A guy who has clearly lawyered up probably ought to call his lawyer to see what libel means before accusing someone of it. It actually doesn’t mean accurately using someone’s name in a way that makes them uncomfortable.

Similarly, Eugene Wahl, the NOAA employee who worked for Alfred University (a place that I understand gave Ward Churchill an honorary PhD — while we’re busy making associations — though I’m not sure it was in climate) at the time he deleted the emails, writes in his public reply to the piece:

The Daily Caller blog yesterday contained an inaccurate story regarding a correspondence that was part of the emails hacked from East Anglia University Climate Research Unit (CRU) in November 2009.

Mr. Wahl, please state what the inaccurate statement was. You forgot to.
Wahl goes on:

For the record, while I received the email from CRU as forwarded by Dr. Mann, the forwarded message came without any additional comment from Dr. Mann; there was no request from him to delete emails. At the time of the email in May 2008, I was employed by Alfred University, New York.  I became a NOAA employee in August 2008.
The emails I deleted while a university employee are the correspondence I had with Dr. Briffa of CRU regarding the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, all of which have been in the public domain since the CRU hack in November 2009.  This correspondence has been extensively examined and no misconduct found.  As a NOAA employee, I follow agency record retention policies and associated guidance from information technology staff.

But he did delete emails after receiving Jones’ request. He says he deleted the emails cited in the request that Mann forwarded to him from Jones. In response to Jones’ request that Mann ask Wahl to delete emails. But — and here’s where us non-scientists are missing the boat, it seems — Jones’ request was to Mann. You see? To, well, to ask Wahl to do what Wahl did. In response to which Mann forwarded the request. From Jones.

So, really, Mann never asked him to delete the emails, just like you can never be “alone” with someone in the White House. See?

Let’s review the points:

Penn State asked Mann, in pertinent part:
Allegation 2: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?

Mann gave a non-answer, according to the way Penn State’s panel tells things, which nonetheless lapped it up and repackaged it as new and improved.

Finding 2. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data related to AR4, as suggested by Dr. Phil Jones. Dr. Mann has stated that he did not delete emails in response to Dr. Jones’ request. Further, Dr. Mann produced upon request a full archive of his emails in and around the time of the preparation of AR4. The archive contained e-mails related to AR4.

Did you do A or B? I did not do A. OK, he didn’t do A or B.
PSU’s panel accepted the non-response, then dressed it up as claiming something there is no indication it actually claimed.

So Mann yells “libel!” and will figure out where and how later. Wahl says I wrote an inaccurate piece without saying how or where it was inaccurate, but is adamant that no one really asked him to delete the emails he deleted on his own volition or after hearing voices or reading it on a tortilla in Mexico or in an oil stain in the parking lot, but regardless, upon receiving this email, which didn’t ask him to delete any emails but only names the emails that need to be disappeared and expresses a desire that someone ask him to delete them.
I think we understand quite well.

Chris Horner is a senior fellow at The Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Original URL: http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/09/a-reply-to-michael-mann-and-eugene-wahl/

 

And now...my commentary:

Anthony Watts, in his article, points out a nice technique that Michael Mann employs; it's called "Careful Speaking":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie

Careful speaking is distinct from the above in that the speaker wishes to avoid imparting certain information or admitting certain facts and, additionally, does not want to ‘lie’ when doing so. Careful speaking involves using carefully-phrased statements to give a ‘half-answer’: one that does not actually ‘answer’ the question, but still provides an appropriate (and accurate) answer based on that question. As with ‘misleading’, below, ‘careful speaking’ is not outright lying.

I call BULLSHIT on that. Why is he even on vacation? Isn't that GRANT MONIES that he's using? During the ClimateGate inquiries/whitewash, it was stated that he was close to having a "nervous breakdown".

I would call that poetic justice. He was engaging in MASSIVE cognitive dissonance; he KNEW that his researches did NOT prove that "Global Warming/Climate Change/whatever bushwah he could make up" was a real and troubling phenomenon that required action; yet he went ahead anyway and tried to game the system and force the ENTIRE WORLD to go along with a FANTASY.

That "hockey stick" should be turned into his own personal suppository.

Yes, Virginia, A Climate Cover-Up - SOTT

Yes, Virginia, A Climate Cover-Up

Sat, 22 Jan 2011 07:08 CST

Junk Science: Democrats in Virginia are trying to stop their attorney general from probing climate fraud carried out by university researchers at taxpayer expense. Are they afraid of finding the inconvenient truth?

It's not the crime, it's the cover-up, as the saying goes. In the case of former University of Virginia climate scientist Michael Mann and his supporters, it may be both. Not only did Mann participate in perhaps the greatest scam of modern times, but he may have also have fraudulently used taxpayer funds to do so.

At least Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli thinks so, and has been diligently trying to obtain from U.Va. documents and e-mails related to Mann's work there. Mann reportedly received around $500,000 from taxpayer-funded grants from the university for research there from 1999 to 2005.

Cuccinelli is alleging a possible violation of a 2002 statute, the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act. The AG has said that he wants the documents, including grant applications and e-mails exchanged between Mann and 39 other scientists and university staffers, to help determine whether Mann committed fraud by knowingly manipulating data as he sought the taxpayer-funded grants for his research.

Mann was at the heart of the ClimateGate scandal when e-mails were unearthed from Britain's Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. In one e-mail sent to Mann and others by CRU director Philip Jones, Jones speaks of the "trick" of filling in gaps of data in order to hide evidence of temperature decline:

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." It was that attempt to "hide the decline" through the manipulation of data that brought down the global warming house of cards.

Mann was the architect behind the famous "hockey stick" graph that was produced in 1999 but which really should be called the "hokey stick." Developed by Mann using manipulated tree-ring data, it supposedly proved that air temperatures had been stable for 900 years, then soared off the charts in the 20th century.

Mann et al. had to make the Medieval Warm Period (about A.D. 800 to 1400) and the Little Ice Age (A.D. 1600 to 1850) statistically disappear.

The graph relied on data from trees on the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia. Here, too, the results were carefully selected. Just 12 trees from the 252 cores in the CRU's Yamal data set were used. A larger data set of 34 tree cores from the vicinity showed no dramatic recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the middle ages. They were not included.

Attempting to block Cuccinelli and rising to Mann's defense are Virginia state senators Chap Petersen and Donald McEachin. They are backing legislation that would strip the attorney general's office of its power to issue "civil investigative demands," otherwise known as subpoenas, under the 2002 statute.

They claim they are defending academic freedom, but they are trying to hide what many consider academic fraud, work that found its way into the reports of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It led to Kyoto and Copenhagen, and formed the basis for the EPA's endangerment finding that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that needs to be regulated.

After Mann left U.Va., he went to Penn State, which the Obama administration awarded with $541,184 in economic stimulus funds to save, according to recovery.gov, 1.62 jobs so that Professor Mann could continue his tree-ring circus fraudulently advancing the myth of man-made global warming that through equally bogus remedies like cap-and-trade and EPA regulations would bring the U.S. economy to its knees.

In a glaringly arrogant e-mail, Mann said he was grateful to the legislators for pressing the issue and hoped the action would give Cuccinelli "some second thoughts about continuing to waste their time and resources attacking well-established science." Hide the decline, then hide the truth.

We hope the legislation fails, the truth will come out and Mann et al. will be held accountable for engineering a scientific and economic fraud that would have made Bernie Madoff blush.

Okay...so what does this all add up to?

This adds up to SCUMBAGGERY. It has been established beyond all doubt that "global warming/climate change" is as real as the Tooth Fairy.

Climate...CHANGES.

Cuccinelli is well within his rights to safeguard the funds of Virginians against waste, and trust me, waste is all that's involved in this shell game. Phil Jones was close to a nervous breakdown, and he would have fallen to pieces if a SINGLE, DIRECT QUESTION had been aimed his way. He KNOWS that he's a lying piece of garbage.

Michael Mann is of the same ilk. I understand that U. Pa could stand to lose funding...but let's think about the bigger picture. What if we outlawed carbon dioxide? CO2 is an element ESSENTIAL to life on this planet. Why would you trust the word of a bunch of lying morons determined to turn our planet into a lifeless husk, all for the sake of thirty pieces of silver?

Kudos to Ken Cuccinelli for doing his research and understanding that these idiots will do ANYTHING to keep the bucks flowing in, regardless of the bullshit they foist off as SCIENCE.

Here's the news: Science is NEVER "settled".

The ClimateGate Inquiries - A Summary

The ClimateGate Inquiries are a must-read if you care about this Earth of ours.

As mentioned in the previous link, the report issues forth from the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

Quickly put, the report concludes that despite the number of "investigations" that were put forth by the various groups mentioned, the results were that "no palpable wrongdoing ensued".

Talk about a whitewash. There was nothing but WRONGDOING.

The various organizations LIED THEIR BOLLOCKS OFF to procure funding for their flawed premise...and trust me...don't take my word for it. Do a Google search for "hockey stick controversy", and you will see that the entire idea is made up out of whole cloth.

Will continue this rant in a bit...work calls, you know...