Sarah Palin's Ridiculous Spin on "Climate Gate"

By Chris Mooney | December 4, 2009 8:39 am

Just wow. Sarah Palin, best known in the science arena for her mocking of research on fruit flies, now has the most stunning thing up on Facebook about “ClimateGate.” Let me give an opening quote from it:

The president’s decision to attend the international climate conference in Copenhagen needs to be reconsidered in light of the unfolding Climategate scandal. The leaked e-mails involved in Climategate expose the unscientific behavior of leading climate scientists who deliberately destroyed records to block information requests, manipulated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, and conspired to silence the critics of man-made global warming. I support Senator James Inhofe’s call for a full investigation into this scandal. Because it involves many of the same personalities and entities behind the Copenhagen conference, Climategate calls into question many of the proposals being pushed there, including anything that would lead to a cap and tax plan.

Adam Siegel has a thorough debunking of Palin’s latest, so I won’t go through it in detail. But I will note that she shows an utter ignorance of basic climate science, confusing climate and weather and claiming that global warming is happening but it’s being caused by “cyclical weather changes” (huh?):

Policy should be based on sound science, not snake oil. I took a stand against such snake oil science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population has increased. I’ve never denied the reality of climate change; in fact, I was the first governor to create a subcabinet position to deal specifically with the issue. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. But while we recognize the effects of changing water levels, erosion patterns, and glacial ice melt, we cannot primarily blame man’s activities for the earth’s cyclical weather changes. The drastic economic measures being pushed by dogmatic environmentalists won’t change the weather, but will dramatically change our economy for the worse.

Again, read Siegel on this. It’s very simple: Palin epitomizes the Republican War on Science, and the fact that, even with Bush gone, it is still being waged.

Comments (101)

  1. Unfortunate, but not surprising. I’m not sure Palin’s take on this matters much. However, Stewart’s does.

  2. I don’t understand why you’re commenting on a Facebook post. If it gets picked up in the national media, respond to that. Until then you’re contributing to the noise.

  3. winslow

    well it seams you are such an expert at nothingelse but refering to others work. you said to go seigel to prove your point. you sure are smart. where did you go to school. harvard im sure. thats where all the smart people come from.

  4. Steven T. Clauter

    I’m no fan of Sarah Palin but now NASA is refusing to release climate data just like the University of East Angia where Climategate first started. Something isn’t right and I suggest putting personal bias aside and get the facts first.

  5. winslow

    well it looks like nelson is one of the followers. programed to only listen to the talking heads in the media. he must of had his grandchild get him on the internet. nelson the internet is for opened minds just go back to your cnn and msnbc. a statement like yours is classic of the mantality of all the uneducated tools that gave us our president. good luck to you sir

  6. bilbo

    The drastic economic measures being pushed by dogmatic environmentalists won’t change the weather, but will dramatically change our economy for the worse.

    …says the former governor of the state who gets billions pumped into its economy by fossil fuel corporations.

    There’s no comflict of interest there….

  7. g6loq

    Sarah rules!
    Get used to it.

  8. Guy

    I can understand why she’s popular with far-right conservatives. She thinks just like they do.

  9. Paul W.

    It seems to me a that a lot of this right wing nonsense is exacerbated by the fact that most of the Republican base thinks it’s fairly likely that the end times are near, and Jesus will come back or the rapture will happen or whatever.

    They’re not planning on being here 100 years down the road, and they’re expecting the world to be pretty much remade in the meantime anyhow, so science geeks prattling on about greenhouse effects seems like majoring in the minors, and basically being clueless about how the world works at works.

    IMHO, a major underlying problem there is that we have knee-jerk “respect” for religious orthodoxy and divine revelation. Most people in the U.S. do think that the Bible is literally divinely inspired (even if you can’t read the bible “literally” like a fundamentalist).

    Given that, it’s hard for the mainstream people who are orthodox but not fundamentalist to marginalize the fundamentalists. No mainstream pundit is going to make fun of Palin for taking the Goatherder’s Guide to the Universe so seriously, because most people do take it seriously, just not quite that way, and most of the rest think it’s rude to point out that it’s kooky and antiscientific to think that book is divinely inspired.

  10. Guy

    Paul W,

    Putting the unlikely event of the rapture aside, there could be some future catastrophe that dwarfs global warming or even nullifies it. There’s just no way of knowing that is certain. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try do something about it. Humanities struggles have an evolution of their own. As Amercians we have a history of facing threats and overcoming them through perseverance. Until something worse comes around, we have to treat this threat as top priority along with fighting terrorism. It’s every bit as important.

  11. winslow

    the experts say the experts say we have to believe them because our government says the debate is over. well i remember a time when we were told by experts that there was a man who had weapons of mass destruction. hmmm was it not the left that said wait lets get it right? why do you not allow the left to do the same? lets get it right this time we have time to get the information and get this right for both sides.

  12. g6loq

    8. Guy Says:
    December 4th, 2009 at 10:04 am
    I can understand why she’s popular with far-right conservatives. She thinks just like they do.

    Yup! Government does things cheaper and better … if dissatisfied, off to the Goulags as big eared wonks rule.
    Off to the Goulags, by the millions …

  13. Sorbet

    There are a lot of conservatives who think Palin (and Limbaugh, Beck etc.) must be right simply because they rub us the wrong way. These people think that making someone else angry must mean you are right and he is wrong.

    Sarah Palin is a bugeyed ignorant airhead. Sadly, there is a very realistic chance this woman might run in 2012.

  14. bilbo

    There also appears to be a growing number of conservatives who think Limbaugh, Beck, and Palin are idiots ruining their party.

    That gives me a flicker of hope.

  15. g6loq

    11. winslow Says:
    remember a time when we were told by experts that there was a man who had weapons of mass destructhiun..

    Bad, bad experts. Full list here. Recognize anyone?:

    http://www.kgoam810.com/viewentry.asp?ID=350332&PT=PERSONALITIES

  16. Sorbet

    Could you point to some of these? I mean those who are vocally saying this. Thanks.

  17. Rmoen

    It’s dangerous to mix politics and science, as Discover has done here. In my mind one the reasons cap-and-trade will not pass is because the Democrats–of which I am one–politicized global warming. Now, Climategate shows more zealotry than science.

    Frankly to me, the Climategate emails underscore the need for the United States to convene its own objective, transparent Climate Truth Commission. The USA must quit outsourcing its climate science to the United Nations. It defies common sense that the UN is both the judge (IPCC) and an advocate (Kyoto Protocol).

    – Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.com

  18. John

    Yup the more we poke the more they cover up.. One cant cover up a decade of dirty science in a few weeks.. Their only hope was political forces keeping the light off of them.. But it shines none the less and people are rethinking..

  19. Paul W.

    Guy,

    I’m not sure if you realize it so… I’m with you on that. Climate denialism is kooky and destructive.

  20. bilbo

    Robert,

    Don’t you see the hypocrisy in saying that we need to keep politics out of science, while at the same time calling for our own federal government to hold a court where they decide what is science and what is not (in other words, letting politicians judge science)? That’s like the very definition of hypocrisy.

  21. Unfortunately, Palin has many more accolytes than do Mooney, Kirshenbaum, Romm and Jeff Masters put together.

    That is a real advantage is spreading dis-information and needs a concerted, wide spread effort to counter. I have even found Green Party activists who found the long debunked Oregon Petition on the internet but were so attuned to conspiracy theory that they accepted it as real without much further investigation.

    Never underestimate the power of ideologues. Remember Sinclair Lewis’s words ““When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

  22. 17. Rmoen Says: “the Democrats–of which I am one–politicized global warming”

    Do you seriously believe that it is the Democratic Party who politicized global warming / climate change science? Considering whose blog you’re commenting to, this seems an incredible assertion.

    In any event, it would be wonderful if the scientific community were taken for what they are and that the ‘debate’ were about what to do about what the evidence and the scientific analysis makes of that evidence.

    The USA must quit outsourcing its climate science to the United Nations

    Do you have any clue as to how much US climate science work is going on that is not dependent on the IPCC? In any event, why not take a look at this US study: http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts

  23. John Kwok

    @ Paul W. -

    If the Republicans were the sole cause for American scientific illiteracy and widespread evolution denial, then why are the Republicans in the minority, with respect to both Independents and Democrats? Since scientific illiteracy and evolution denial are important problems here in the United States, then it should follow that there are quite a few Independents and Democrats who suffer from these afflications (One notable example is Arkansas United States Senator – and Democrat and Young Earth Creationist – Mark Pryor.).

    There is a lot that one can blame my fellow Republicans for, but claiming that they are ones most likely to be scientific illiterates and evoluton denialists is an absurd assertion in light of polling data over the past few decades. Moreover, you – and others who would make such a claim – are doing a grave disservice to people like Conservative commentators John Derbyshire (National Review) P. J. O’Rourke (Rolling Stone and The Weekly Standard), scientists like biologist Paul R. Gross (co-author, with Barbara Forrest, of “Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design”).

    I can’t excuse Palin’s absurd observations regarding ClimateGate and Obama’s forthcoming trip to Copenhagen, nor will I even try.

  24. g6loq

    21. Wes Rolley Says:
    Never underestimate the power of ideologues. Remember Sinclair Lewis’s words ““When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

    Right on!
    Theocracy forever descending on the USA … and landing somewhere else …
    Islam is a religion of piece …

    More to say but I’ve been hoagin’ da computer here at the public library for too long and they’re looking at me funny.

    Sarah Palin sure is ignorant! And, a bad person …

  25. JJ

    She’s not all that far off the mark here. Like it or not, there’s not enough evidence to definitively prove “climate change” is in fact exacerbated by humans. These e-mails prove just that and that alone. Until definitive proof can be presented, there’s no reason to tax the hell out of American business, especially when China and India will do nothing to curb CO2 emissions. It’s not worth the negative economic impact. In my opinion, it’s another fallacy being exploited in order to increase the government’s tax revenue. Furthermore, anyone with a heartbeat can tell you that the seasons have been progressively milder over the last 10 years as well. This doesn’t fit with the global warming argument and is stated as such in those e-mails.

  26. Tourist

    Anyone that’s been paying attention over the last year pretty much knows that Ms. Palin resents elitist educations, Ivy Leaguers and such, and doesn’t appear to be exactly a learned individual. With that said, she comes across as the Barbie Talking Points doll (now that Anne Coulter went around the bend and became so exceedingly crude and vulgar so that the conservatives had to distance themselves) with little to no imagination or creative thought capability. So, no one really needs to rebut her points, as they are not her points. Little Miss ‘Oh, I’m a political pundit!’, is unarmed in a war of the intellect (no elitist her)so no intellectual argument here. Perhaps it’s one of those junkie radio talking heads that’s pulling her strings – but, who really cares? What’s she lacks in depth and introspection she more than makes up with arrogance, and a sense of self-importance. All she has to do is tweet or blurb on facebook, and her followers swoon. At the same time she disavows ‘climate change’, she worships at the altar of witch doctors. Her followers?????? Emotionally and intellectually distanced from reason.

  27. g6loq

    26. Tourist Says:
    December 4th, 2009 at 12:01 pm ….

    mmm … mmm.. mmm
    She can kill a moose and serve it to you as a delicious stew …
    You have a problem.

    I agree that this country need more large eared left leaning Ivy League educated wonks…

  28. Jon

    Palin epitomizes the Republican War on Science…

    This whole episode has been textbook, from beginning to end.

  29. Paul W.

    John,

    If the Republicans were the sole cause for American scientific illiteracy and widespread evolution denial, then why are the Republicans in the minority, with respect to both Independents and Democrats?

    I never said that the Republicans were the sole cause of scientific illiteracy or evolution denial, or meant to imply it.

    I agree with you that they are very clearly not.

    My point was that Palin is representative of a fairly common kind of fairly extreme Christian orthodoxy. (Including but not limited to protestant fundamentalism.)

    The Republican party has a problem that while those people aren’t the whole Republican party, or limited to the Republican party, they are disproportionately represented and have taken a lot of control over the party.

    Certainly, as bilbo says, there are many conservatives who recognize this and are unhappy about it.

    Unfortunately, they evidently are on the run—e.g., the head of the RNC apologizing for having said that Rush Limbaugh is not the leader of the Republican party.

    That’s gotta be scary as hell for the Republicans who aren’t the Jesus-is-comin-Real-Soon antiscience people that I’m talking about, and it’s pretty scary to watch from the outside.

  30. our kids are never gonna know that we used to mean something else by the term “Political Science”.

    I’m so embarrassed.

  31. Jon
  32. Stephanie S

    Wait a minute, Sarah Palin actually says something intelligent and people are attacking her? For the most part, I feel that Palin is a joke, but was pleasantly surprised to find that she got something right. Do your climate research.

  33. Jon

    Do your climate research.

    What climate research is that? Where do you do your research, Stephanie?

  34. Stephanie S

    33. Jon Says:
    December 4th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
    Do your climate research.

    What climate research is that? Where do you do your research, Stephanie?

    Try Harris Mann Climatology. There are other sources too. But most people are too ignorant to really look outside of news media.

  35. JJ

    I don’t understand why people think the Republicans are waging a war against science. The Republicans want to be energy independent by drilling for oil, using more natural gas and electric power, and establishing nuclear power plants to do away with coal plants. The Democrats, on the other hand, oppose drilling for oil here, refuse to build nuclear power plants, and are not pushing for greater use of our abundant sources of natural gas. The Democrats also want to tax big businesses to expand the government and establish control over the energy industry, while Republicans want to offer incentives to “green” businesses to invest in r & d. Just because the stereotype of Republicans revolves around gun toting red-necks that believe God will save everything doesn’t mean they’re against science, nothing could be further from the truth. I’m not saying this because I’m a Republican. I’m an informed, non-religious Libertarian.

  36. Jon

    Harris and Mann

    Harris is not a trained scientist – he studied insurance law in college – but he has one of the most extensive collections of private weather records in the Northwest, and he’s built a successful business off his long-range weather predictions. He also writes a popular weekly weather column for the Coeur d’Alene Press… Randy Mann, a KREM-2 meteorologist and a weekly columnist for The Spokesman-Review.

    They sound like nice enough dudes, fun to have a beer with, but not climate scientists.

  37. SLC

    Re John Kwok

    Mr. Kwok just refuses to face the fact that his party has been hijacked by the religious right and their handlers. Falwell, Dobson, Shelton, Coulter, Savage, Hannity, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, et al are far more influential in the Rethuglican Party then the individuals he cites. Why do neocon non-Christians like Bill Kristol back Sarah Palin? Because they see her as a useful idiot who they can manipulate. Similarly for neocon guru Norman Podhoretz, who publishes David Berlinskis’ crap in his rag, Commentary, who simply can’t understand why American Jews refuse to get into bed with the Christian fundamentalists.

  38. Michael Moon

    Science does not work this way. Scentists are required to prove their hypotheses, show how they proved them, and let other scientists try to recreate the experiment. It is all to be out in the open, so that there is no hint of suppression of dissent. Does that sound to anyone who has read the revealed e-mails like what has been going on with this crowd? I submit that they are not scientists at all, but activists/fanatics with a predetermined goal. The IPCC itself is now investigating the whole crew, as is Penn State, UK’s Information Commissioner, and the US Congress.

    We need proof of warming temperatures. Anecdotal evidence such as some melting glaciers, or four drowned polar bears, will not suffice, nor will Arctic ice lessening as Antarctic ice is increasing. Air temperature is the issue, nothing else. The hockey stick graph was based on tree rings, and he faked the last 40 years as the tree ring data showed a major decline in temperature for that period, so he just hacked that part off and substituted thermometer records! Can any one think of some factor other than temperature that affects tree rings? I can name several. Farcical, it would be funny if it weren’t so important.

    In high school geometry we learn about proof. Science is not a democracy, consensus is irrelevant. Let’s see some proof, wide-open, data available for analysis by anyone who asks, no more of this “Trust us, we’re scientists” baloney.

    A little sunlight would be good for this Global Warming business, to make a bad pun…

  39. Craig

    Anyone who cannot or refuses to recognize that the content of the released information (emails and computer code) warrant a thorough and publicly disclosed investigation BEFORE we commit hugh resources to curtail CO2, exposes themselves as prejudiced and biased regarding the subject of climate change. If opposing scientists have been have truly been hushed, there is no scientific consensus regarding global warming.

  40. Jon

    Scentists are required to prove their hypotheses, show how they proved them, and let other scientists try to recreate the experiment.

    This is the definition of what they did. For instance, here is a whole page of experiments:

    http://tinyurl.com/heatisonline

    There’s plenty here besides tree rings. You could look up the details of each experiment at any library, as other scientists have done for quite a while now. If any scientist proved any of these experiments wrong, it would make their careers. If you don’t think people have tried, you don’t know what has happened in the field.

  41. JJ

    If anyone wants further proof that these scientists are trying to hide something, here are the e-mails released by the EPA. It’s clear that these scientists cannot definitively offer valid proof for the last decade of cooling trends.

    http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/Endangerment%20Comments%206-23-09.pdf

  42. Sorbet

    JJ, it is true that the models cannot account for last decade’s cooling (or stagnation to be accurate since 2005 was still the hottest year on record). But you have to remember that on a planetary scale, ten years is nothing. The models have accounted for thousands of years of climate based on a variety of measurements. A lack of explanation for a decade is a valid scientific difficulty but it does not invalidate everything.

  43. Stephanie S

    Jon:

    Not sure where you get your information. Cliff Harris is a climatologist. I am sure you googled the name without the title. Done this way, it could also be said that Cliff Harris is a football player.

    You fail to realize that man-made global warming is big business. Al Gore made a killing off of his book about global warming. As a matter of fact, Al Gore is so concerned about global warming that after he holds conferences about the environment, he jumps into his gas guzzling SUV and drives away. Gore makes me ashamed to vote Democrat.

  44. Tourist

    JJ writes: “The Democrats, on the other hand, oppose drilling for oil here, refuse to build nuclear power plants…” And, so the Republicans have finally discovered where to put that nuclear waste? Excellent.

  45. Jon

    Not sure where you get your information

    I got my information to the newspaper story I linked to above. You’re saying the newspaper published something incorrect?

  46. Stephanie S

    Should this even be something that is argued by political party? People should be interested in the truth, not just what their political party tends to believe. Think independently. I vote Democrat. I think Sarah Palin is a joke, but that doesn’t make her wrong or crazy on this subject. As a matter of fact, this is about the only intelligent thing that I have ever heard come from Sarah’s mouth.

  47. Stephanie S

    Jon:

    Have you considered the agenda of the website where you got your article? This site is all about global warming. There is much made of the fact that Greenland is thawing enough to where they are able to do some farming. This is not the first time that this has happened. Vikings farmed Greenland about 1,000 years ago. There were no factories or SUVs back then. It seems to me that you are one of those who want to believe in man-made global warming regardless of whether it is one-sided reporting or not. I care about polar bears as much as anybody else, but the money being wasted on trying to stop global warming should be used trying to adapt. These governments are trying to stop Earth from doing what it is going to do regardless. What a waste of resources.

  48. John Kwok

    @ Paul W. -

    Whew, am glad we agree on something finally.

    @ JJ -

    Your points about which political party is more serious about energy independence and trying to reduce the overall carbon footprint are those I endorse. Moreover, I should note that none other than NASA climatologist James Hansen thinks we need to shift our priorities drastically so that we are committed towards the construction of more nuclear power plants. Once a sufficient number are online, it would reduce our carbon footprint and our reliance upon fossil fuels such as oil and coal (He is rather optimistic that we can deal with nuclear waste effectively, and I might add that I am more optimistic too, having heard him and several others speak on this very issue last June at the World Science Festival.).

    @ SLC -

    I want to reclaim the Republican Party from the Religious Right. Don’t need a reminder from you, thank you.

  49. WTF

    Sarah Palin? You are so obsessed with that twit that all you could find to write about concerning the biggest science fraud and scandal in world history is her?
    OMG! We really are doomed. It really is a weird cult and with cap and trade, it is really looking a lot like a suicidal one!

  50. 38. Michael Moon Says:

    Air temperature is the issue, nothing else.

    How patently absurd.

    What about ocean temperatures. (By the way, warming.)

    Polar ice mass. (By the way, declining.)

    Glaciers. (By the way, retreating globally.)

    Animal habitat ranges. (By the way, writ large, moving away from equator and/or going higher in elevation.)

    Etc …

  51. Jon

    Stephanie:

    The Spokesman Review looks like an apple pie newspaper to me. They’re not activists, they’re in the small newspaper biz.

    Vikings in Greenland is an old one:

    http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/greenland-used-to-be-green.php

  52. Stephanie S

    You posted a link to The Spokesman Review? All I found was this link to a website, http://tinyurl.com/heatisonline. Yes, Vikings in Greenland is an old one, but the recent farming is often used by the man-made global warming alarmists as evidence that global warming is taking place.

  53. ChiTownGuy

    So you wrote an article bashing Palin but not about the fraud called global warming. I am not a Palin fan but really?

    What about the ridiculous spin by the IPCC after getting caught doctoring numbers to achieve their desired results? No article about that? You wouldn’t be a little partisan and biased now would you?

    Republicans epitomize the war on science? Maybe, but to rush to judgement on junk science…once again, really?

    This partisan crap on both sides will be the downfall of our country. While we argue left and right, the left and right in DC are swindling from us. Wake Up, don’t add to it.

    If they pass the cap and trade bill, the average family houshold will pay $2000 more a year for their energy. Maybe we should make sure the sceince in accurate before rushing to kill our economy even further.

    The emails demonstrate that the IPCC Scientists are willing to manipulate data to achieve the outcome they want…warmer temps. If the science is settled then why do they have to manipulate the numbers?

    If the science is settled then why did 31,000 scientists sign documentation that the science behind global warming is crap?

    Global Warming is big business. These sceintists are funded by various governements including the US Govt., using our tax dollars to come to one conclusion…prove warming. If they prove otherwise…there goes their funding.

    I can’t believe people would be soooooooo partisan they they are willing to pay thousands more a year for false science.

    Why in the last 10 years did a huge glacier on Mars rapidly melt? Maybe it was the emissions from the Mars rover? NO!!!! THE SUN, THE SUN, THE SUN. The one key element that both Earth and Mars share. Now that the solar flares are not as active, we are cooling.

    Do some research on the subject before you spew what your politcal party tells you to spew. Get a mind of your own.

  54. Jon

    Yes, Heat is Online is activist. But the scientific articles cited are real. Heat is Online didn’t make them up.

  55. I don’t know what is most astonishing. The fact that this woman could be the next president of the U.S., which would be, in some sense, the most powerful human being in the world, or the fact that even on this blog, there are commenters who feel that what she’s saying is true.

    Or the fact that so much commenters are writing the same mistakes over and over, without verifying their sources, and in the same time criticizing journalists for not verifying their sources. As for Stephanie: the Greenland thing is a bad argument. Sure, it was hotter, but not that hot. Check your sources.

  56. Stephanie S

    No, but there are other scientific articles that say otherwise. They are just not as well publicized. You may want to try looking for those as well.

  57. Stephanie S

    Yes, the Greenland thing is a bad argument often used by global warming alarmists. Glad you finally said something correct. Seems that you could take some time to verify sources as well.

  58. Jon

    No, but there are other scientific articles that say otherwise.

    Where are they?

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

    928 published studies in peer reviewed journals, none bucking the consensus.

  59. JJ

    I, too, am optimistic about the disposal or recycling of nuclear waste. I think the government and science community should put more money and effort into r & d of recycling radioactive waste over establishing clean coal technology. President Obama recently moved to close a radioactive waste facility at Yucca Mountain, throwing away about 200 million of our tax dollars. Where are we now going to send spent nuclear fuel in the US? Also, the Europeans and our own Navy rely on nuclear fuel, but where do they send spent fuel? If they can do it, we can do it. Doesn’t anyone else think it’s hypocritical for the Democrats to throw our money into nuclear power and oil drilling overseas, but refuse to do the same here?

  60. Tourist

    A poster writes: “He is rather optimistic that we can deal with nuclear waste effectively, and I might add that I am more optimistic too, having heard him and several others speak on this very issue last June at the World Science Festival.)”Really now? I’ve been hearing that word “optimistic” almost since the advent of nuclear power plants. Anything more concrete?

  61. GW = HOAX

    Sorry and sad for you dopes, the argument is OVER. Copenhagen is a huge hoax and even bigger scandal than UN OIL or WMD.

    There is no more argument and the people will not be fooled into a world government taxation scheme with this fear mongering of climate change.

    After all, people like the Club of Rome have admitted this for years, that they contrived this for power and nothing more.

    On manipulating America with environmental issues:

    “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. …The real enemy then is humanity itself. Democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead.”

    – Richard Haass, Club of Rome Document, 1991 “The First Global Revolution” p. 71,75 1993

  62. Stephanie S

    Of course not Jon, they weren’t looking for it. There is much more money involved in going with the flow than going against it where global warming is concerned.

    If you have ever taken a statistics class, you would know that data can be manipulated. As a matter of fact, the who basis of the article you have commented on was about so called “scientists” manipulating data. The emails in this article are what what we consider a primary source. Try reading the whole article.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

    Global warming skeptics don’t just make this stuff up. There are many scientists who dispute the whole global warming thing. Please see below.

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

    Then you could look here:

    http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/08/14/earth-wobble-climate.html

    I know it is alot of work Jon. Much easier to just believe what you are told.

    ChiTownGuy: Great post.

  63. Jon

    Of course not Jon, they weren’t looking for it.

    If you’re saying Naomi Oreskes committed academic fraud, that’s a serious charge. That paper has been published for years now. If it’s fraud, as you assume, why hasn’t anyone found it? All you have to do is look at what’s published compared to her study.

    As usual, you guys are just left with conspiracy theories. It’s no better than the Discovery Institute’s charges that the whole establishment is aligned against them and for Darwin.

    And Senator Inhofe’s office *does* just make things up, or close to it:

    http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/inhofes-650-quotdissentersquot-make-649-648

  64. JJ

    Nice post Stephanie. I have a degree in math and use the statistical analysis argument quite often when referring to popular figures. For those that aren’t familiar with stats, here’s a very basic article into how easy it is to manipulate and misinterpret figures.

    http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/247090/statistical_tricks_the_numbers_can.html?cat=31

  65. Rmoen

    @Bilbo-
    I am calling for an OBJECTIVE, TRANSPARENT Climate Truth Commission. …not one run by politicians. I want databases, assertions and studies tested for accuracy and bias before being entered into evidence, much like a court of law.

    @A Siegel-
    Thanks for the link. I glanced at the paper and will read it later. I did note, however, that a substantial number of its citations are to IPCC’s work. It’s also worth noting that the EPA, in its recent move to boost regulation of greenhouse gases, relied upon the IPCC in over half its cites.

    As a practical matter, I would think you support a Climate Truth Commission. Climate change legislation is going nowhere until ‘better science’ is perceived by voters.

    Are you aware that the IPCC is only tasked to ‘evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activity’. Given its marching orders it automatically omits Mother Nature as a possible driver or even contributor to climate change–which we all understand is hogwash.

    Respectfully, I challenge you to read the IPCC’s 2007 report and find the smoking gun that proves climate change is driven by CO2. Feel free to email me at rmoen@energyplanusa.com. You have a nice blog/site, by the way.

    – Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA

  66. Rmoen

    @A Seigel-
    I looked at Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States report. You said it represented work of U.S. science and institutions. But that is not true. When the reports says, ‘global
    warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced
    emissions of heat-trapping gases’ that is straight from the IPCC according to the citations at the end of the paper.

    I stand by by earlier post, the United States needs to convene its own objective, transparent Climate Truth Commission. The USA must quit outsourcing its climate science to the United Nations. It defies common sense that the UN is both the judge (IPCC) and an advocate (Kyoto Protocol).’

    – Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA

  67. There is much more money involved in going with the flow than going against it where global warming is concerned.

    You are not serious, aren’t you? You don’t how much billions oil industry, car industry and others put each year in lobbying, think tank and other efforts to “debunk” climate science? And it does not seem strange to you that despite having 30 years of serious researches that they have been trying to demolish since decades now, all they are able to get are a few suspicious e-mails?

  68. AMERICA_IS_A_REPLUBLIC

    Libtards like Chris Mooney are shaking in their boots now that the sacred cow known as “Global Warming” then later “Climate Change” (after it was proven that the Earth hasn’t warmed in 11 years!), is based upon phony, manufactured research that gained ground by ridiculing and hiding any evidence that debunks it. The Goal of Global Warming Alarmists, is to establish a global government to control all private industry, carbon quotas for profit, and selling a brand name product. Just ask that Billionaire Fraudster Al Gore. CLIMATE GATE! The story that wont go away no matter how much politically biased opportunists want it to. Al Gore and his cronies with the help of yellow journalists like Chris Mooney, are seeking to white wash the Climate Gate story and keep the issue from being debated or critiqued, especially by facts or their own emails!

  69. Raynjuls

    Its always amusing to see the term “settled science” used in reference to AGW. For a couple of thousand years, it was “settled science” that the universe was geo-centric. Then circa 1500, Copernicus unsettled that science, and Kepler came along and finished the job. Likewise, it was settled science that charge distribution at the atomic level was essentially uniform, until Earnest Rutheford came along and unsettled that as well. Newtonian physics were settled for several hundred years until Einstein upset that particular applecart. What the left is currently calling “deniers” are actually the heretics that ultimately advance science by questioning the consensus… I could care less about Palin, but her views are no more idiotic than those that continue to espouse Gore’s party line.

  70. Stephanie S

    Pascal, all you have to do is be able to scare the public into believing something and that you need money to find a way to solve the problem. The public will support spending trillions of dollars to fix the problem. Public fear is a very powerful force, certainly more powerful than the oil companies. They may be paying, but the researchers know how they will make more money. Plus, you forget the political agendas. Geez.

  71. g6loq

    Globalwarmongerers are too ornery for their own good.

    A little more reserve is advisable as cleaning the environment could quickly take a meaning they didn’t anticipate … it’s happened before. Read contemporary Spanish or Chilean history …

  72. Don

    It is true, that if you believe in God, you probably recognize that He is going to come back and fix things himself. Check

    If your an Atheist, you think this is all there is, so you and your Atheists Scientists, and Politicians, will have to fix everything yourselves and tell everyone else they should agree with you. Check

    I’ll go with #1

  73. Sean McCorkle

    Stephanie @66

    Public fear is a very powerful force…

    Exactly! The global-warming detractors (fossil hydrocarbon industries) attempt to scare the public in these ways:

    • It will cost too much to remedy!
    • The economy will suffer!
    • Jobs will be lost!
    • Taxes will go up!
  74. Sean McCorkle

    (that was @71, not @66 sorry for the error)

  75. g6loq

    Sean McCorkle Says:
    December 4th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
    Exactly! The global-warming detractors (fossil hydrocarbon industries) attempt to scare the public in these ways: blah, blah, blah …

    and … Globalwarmongers attempt to scare the sheeple in this way: blah, blah, blah …

    Commies, Stalinists, National Scocialists made it a specialty of accusing opponents of that they’d be doing …
    Then, off to the Gulags!

  76. g6loq

    Exception to Godwin law on matter of the environment perhaps? Since the National Socialists were such staunch ecologists … Stalinist/Commies were not … WWII was a Socialist civil war ….

    Remains, you always accuse me of that you’ve been doing. Here, Bush=Hitler, many picts:

    http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=612

    “The science is so settled it’s now perfectly routine for leaders of the developed world to go around sounding like apocalyptic madmen of the kind that used to wander the streets wearing sandwich boards and handing out homemade pamphlets. Governments that are incapable of – to pluck at random – enforcing their southern border, reducing waiting times for routine operations to below two years, or doing something about the nightly ritual of car-torching “youths”, are nevertheless taken seriously when they claim to be able to change the very heavens – if only they can tax and regulate us enough. As they will if they reach “consensus” at Copenhagen. And most probably even if they don’t.”

    - Mark Steyn.

  77. Jon

    I take it you’ve been reading Jonah Goldberg, g6loq:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqpqQQeSZVY

  78. g6loq

    Actually, I lived Goldberg book …
    surrounded by pompous, sanctimonious, holier-than-thou and condescending city dwelling useful idiots …

    Current Globalwarmongers crop is just a variation on the theme … Bourgeois kids with a daddy problem.

    Like the last time, the environment will have to cleaned again …

    Book: The True Believer, Eric hoffer

  79. bilbo

    It is true, that if you believe in God, you probably recognize that He is going to come back and fix things himself. Check

    Don:

    Do you wait for God to put your pants on for you in the morning? I’m not trying to be condescending here. I’m just saying that if God gave us free will to make our own choices, those choices include both to screw up the environment (i.e. the Creation) AND to make it a better place.

    If someone dumps trash in your yard, do you just leave it until God picks it up, or do you use your God-given abilities to pick it up yourself?

  80. Brian Too

    @Stephanie S., ChiTownGuy,

    Climate change is “big business”? Really?

    Because the last time I checked, the oil companies, car companies, pipeline companies, shipping companies, and all the rest were a whole heck of a lot bigger than Al Gore. As long as you keep harping on Gore and ignoring Exxon, you have tarnished credibility.

    Frankly we need climate change to become big business in order to change the situation. However it’s a long, long, LONG way from even matching the size of the players in the carbon economy.

  81. Jon

    g6loq: Actually, I lived Goldberg book… Bourgeois kids with a daddy problem.

    Actually, you lived the ex-Marxist Irving Kristol’s propaganda, second or third hand:

    The New Class is not easily defined, but may be vaguely described. It consists of a goodly proportion of those college educated people whose skills and vocations proliferate in a ‘post-industrial society’… We are talking about scientists, teachers and educational administrators, journalists and others in the communication industries, psychologists, social workers, those lawyers and doctors who make their career in the expanding public sector, city planners and the staffs of the larger foundations and upper levels of the government bureaucracy, and so on…

    … they are acting upon a hidden agenda: to propel the nation from that modified version of capitalism we call ‘the welfare state’ toward an economic system so stringently regulated in detail as to fulfil many of the traditional anti-capitalist aspirations of the Left.

    Those scientists with their scientific method and inconvenient findings! We don’t care how hard they worked to come to their conclusions, or how water tight they are. They’re really commies! Fascists! What they really secretly want is to grow the government, yadda yadda, blah blah blah, commies, blah blah, fascists, blah blah blah blah… etc etc.

  82. Jay

    If ya think Sarah Palin comments are a joke then Al Gore must be a all night comedy routine. American and its new class of media sheep! It’s no wonder to me how Obama got elected. bah, bah

  83. Jay

    Anyone remember “Global Cooling” on the 1970? That was the same kind of brilliance that we have today! — Google global cooling

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

    Wake up you sheep!

  84. bilbo

    Or this wonderful prediction from scientists from the ’70s, Jay:

    “We predict that global warming will result in noticeable impacts – including a significant rise in global sea levels and the opening of the fabled “Northwest Passage” in the next century.”

    …and the N’west Passage opened in, when was it, 2007?

  85. g6loq

    83. Jon Says:
    … Those scientists with their scientific method and inconvenient findings! We don’t care how hard they worked to come to their conclusions, or how water tight they are. …

    It’s not how hard you work, it is how reproducible the results … You never erase the raw data.

    Yup, commies, with a Gaia religious fiber:

    THE RELIGION OF ENVIRONMENTALISM

    Apparently, environmentalists, under the auspices of the UN, decided two years ago that they were promulgating a religion. [HT: Lubos Motl]

    Document Reveals U.N.’s Goal of Becoming Rule-Maker in Global Environmental Talks

    Environmentalism should be regarded on the same level with religion “as the only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity,” according to a paper written two years ago to influence the future strategy of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the world’s would-be environmental watchdog.

    The purpose of the paper, put together after an unpublicized day-long session in Switzerland by some of the world’s top environmental bureaucrats: to argue for a new and unprecedented effort to move environmental concerns to “the center of political and economic decision-making” around the world — and perhaps not coincidentally, expand the influence and reach of UNEP at the tables of world power, as a rule-maker and potential supervisor of the New Environmental Order.

    This is very clarifying. Since environmentalism is equivalent to a religion, that explains why the burden of proof needed to support their hypotheses is so minimal. Who needs proof when you have faith?

    http://shrinkwrapped.blogs.com/blog/2009/11/the-religion-of-environmentalism.html#comments

  86. I was saying how astonished I am to see commenters trying to “debunk” global warming by repeating the same mistakes over and over, without verifying their sources. A most astonishing example is given by Jay # 85: he pulling off one more time the old argument of “global-cooling-in-the-70s-who-was-oh-so-much-popular… and he is giving us a source… that he does not even care to read:

    Global cooling: This hypothesis never had significant scientific support.

  87. Jon

    …that explains why the burden of proof needed to support their hypotheses is so minimal.

    You don’t “prove” things in science. You prove things in geometry. By the way, can you even explain to me what evidence the scientists *have* for human-caused climate change?

    Because I’m sure you’re operating without a clue. (BTW, Winguts lecturing scientists about being religious. That’s quite a sight. Usually on this blog it’s the other way around.)

  88. g6loq

    89. Jon Says:
    (BTW, Winguts lecturing scientists about being religious. That’s quite a sight. Usually on this blog it’s the other way around.)

    Actually, if you read, it is foreign Nutroots who want equivalency with religion for their Globalwarmogering delusion …

    The environment they create will have to be cleaned out. Read contemporary Spanish and Chilean history.

    Soon we’ll come de-develop. One household at the time.

    This below is the plan: [nutroots are big on statist plans]

    Presidential Science Advisor Wants to Reverse American Development
    http://tinyurl.com/mwfns5

  89. bilbo

    g6loq:

    With all those conspiracies you’ve got lurking around, I can’t see how you could possibly sleep at night.

  90. John Kwok

    @ tourist -

    At the World Science Festival panel discussion featuring climatologist James Hansen, I also heard excellent commentary on our ability to reuse spent waste fuel for nuclear reactors from physicist Shirley Ann Jackson, President of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (She was head of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission during the first Clinton administration). She shares Hansen’s optimism, especially with regards to reprocessing spent fuel to use as additional “fuel” for the latest generation of reactors.

    As for Obama’s decision to shut down the Yucca Flats radioactive waste storage facility, that’s a stupid, boneheaded decision which I am sure his science advisors did not recommend. Here Obama seems to be kowtowing to radical environmentalists and others who are too “fearful” of nuclear power.

  91. g6loq

    91. bilbo Says:
    December 4th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
    With all those conspiracies you’ve got lurking around, I can’t see how you could possibly sleep at night.

    That bunch in the White House is all conspiracies, no theories.
    It’ll all end well …

    One of my fav from the science advisor:
    Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren: TREES Should Have Legal Standing In Court!
    http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2009/08/obamas-science-czar-john-holdren-trees.html

  92. Jon

    That bunch in the White House is all conspiracies, no theories.

    Sounds like you’re a member of the GOP base in good standing, g6loq.

    Palin/Wurzelbacher in 2012!!

  93. g6loq

    94. Jon Says:
    December 5th, 2009 at 10:49 am

    Sounds like you’re a member of the GOP base in good standing, g6loq.

    Yup! And here I gladly show you the finger:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nr70MCMWc7w

  94. orvict

    Show me the evidence that man is causing climate change.
    Any research touched by CRU and the key players there is now tainted.
    Any research based on this research is now tainted.

    Imperical Evidence?

  95. Bill

    I can not believe that Discovery Magazine would stoop so low. Some people out there need to give thier head a shake, I would think it wise to stand back for a moment and just think about what has happened the last few days.

    Many of the top scientists that we all are listening to, and are effecting our economy, and our individual lives, with their data have just been caught red-handed fixing the numbers… that is not good science. Maybe it would be a good idea to stand back for a while and see what happens before we make promises that will cost billions.

    Many blame the Right wing for keeping their eyes closed and following faith before science but I think that the Left must can regularily be charged with the same.

    This peice had a lot more to do with politics than it did science.

  96. melanie

    But the crooks have been caught out red handed ,falsifying the date and rigging the peer review process ,no matter which way you look t it its a fraud ,and they should all be sued and jailed .

  97. Aaron

    You know something is wrong when the messenger is attacked. You know something is wrong when so many people here WANT there to be global warming.

    At the moment this broke, there should have been huge sighs of relief that maybe we weren’t all going to drown, and the polar bears WERE going to survive. This should have been viewed as an opportunity to examine the data again, and hopefully find out that our planet WILL be ok. Al Gore should be throwing a party that all his apocolyptic fears may not come to pass afterall.

    None of that happened, and why? Because its not about the damn planet or environment. Its about the lot of you marxists wanting to advance your pathetic political AGENDA, take away our freedom and prosperity, and nullify the deaths of hundreds of thousands that gave their lives fighting the likes of you.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

About Chris Mooney

Chris is a science and political journalist and commentator and the author of three books, including the New York Times bestselling The Republican War on Science--dubbed "a landmark in contemporary political reporting" by Salon.com and a "well-researched, closely argued and amply referenced indictment of the right wing's assault on science and scientists" by Scientific American--Storm World, and Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, co-authored by Sheril Kirshenbaum. They also write "The Intersection" blog together for Discover blogs. For a longer bio and contact information, see here.

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »