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.
Showing posts with label Albert Gore. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Albert Gore. Show all posts
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Warming, NOT? - New York Post
Hey, everyone...haven't updated this for a bit...but here's a good reason for coming back:
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."
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
‘Warming’ not?
Climate-change theory faces sudden collapse
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."
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)