Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The real embarrassment in Copenhagen

To read the headlines, you'd think that the climate-change confab getting underway in Copenhagen is a hotbed for scandal.

British newspapers are declaring that the conference -- which will ultimately attract tens of thousands of government officials, activists and protesters -- will produce a carbon footprint larger than some African countries. The irony was anticipated but unavoidable -- organizers vetoed video-conferencing as a negotiation tool and most politicians, at least, don't have the time for carbon-neutral train rides or a biodiesel-fueled “climate caravan” to Copenhagen. But Denmark says it will offset a portion of the conference’s emissions with carbon-reducing projects elsewhere. And even a weak emissions reduction agreement would more than offset a year of Copenhagen conferences.

Then there’s “climate-gate,” centering around files from a British research center that climate-change skeptics say confirm their doubts. Except that the handful of ill-chosen phrases, even when twisted and taken out of context, don’t undermine the massive body of evidence -- from the geological record to ice cores to tree rings to direct temperature measurement to contemporary events -- that the world is warming, likely due to human activity and possibly to very dangerous effect. Some of the climate scientists implicated in climate-gate deserve reprimand for overreacting to skeptics’ aggressive attacks. And it’s irresponsible to claim absolute certainty about complex science. But, as the UN’s chief scientist argued today in Copenhagen, indictment of the field writ large this is not.

If there's something scandalous in Copenhagen, it's that the commitments on the table from developed countries and large developing nations are probably inadequate to prevent the sort of warming scientists estimate is unacceptably risky. That’s not something that negotiators can solve over the next two weeks -- even getting a preliminary figure from the Obama administration was hard enough, given the legislative mess in Congress. But it is the bottom line that climate negotiators, no doubt, wish wasn’t there at the moment.

By Stephen Stromberg  | December 7, 2009; 3:25 PM ET
Categories:  Stromberg  | Tags:  Stephen Stromberg  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Applebaum: My car did not explode
Next: Good News in the health-care debate

Comments

you don't think Sen. Inhofe's attendance, JUST TO BE SURE NO MATTER WHAT IS DECIDED AND/OR AGREED UPON the U.S. isn't doing crappola is the real embarrissment??

Posted by: oregonokie | December 7, 2009 3:45 PM | Report abuse

"If there's something scandalous in Copenhagen, it's that the commitments on the table from developed countries and large developing nations are probably inadequate to prevent the sort of warming scientists estimate is unacceptably risky."

That strikes me less as a scandal and more as business as usual.

Posted by: AlexRemington | December 7, 2009 3:47 PM | Report abuse

The world has come to a fork in the road. Down one path lies freedom of expression and democracy. Down the other lies authoritianism and Orwellian thought. And to clarify that choice one need only read the commments made by the UN spokesman regarding the emails that have come into the public domain. He compared their release to the Watergate breakin. He was right to compare it to Watergate. But Watergate is not known for the break in. Watergate is known for the subsequent coverup. And cover up is what is going on at Copenhagen as I write this. And the comments made in this article by Mr. Stromberg amount to the same. They do not want you to consider anything but what they say. Freedom of thought is to be eliminated. Remember, about 75% of the members of the UN are authoritian regemes of one sort or another and Obama wants to submit you to their control. The future of the free world is at stake here. Choose carefully.

Posted by: jdonner2 | December 7, 2009 4:01 PM | Report abuse

"If there's something scandalous in Copenhagen, it's that the commitments on the table from developed countries and large developing nations are probably inadequate to prevent the sort of warming scientists estimate is unacceptably risky. That’s not something that negotiators can solve over the next two weeks -- even getting a preliminary figure from the Obama administration was hard enough, given the legislative mess in Congress."

What legislative mess? Obama's party has secure control of both houses of the U.S. Congress with substantial majority in both!! Can't he get them to do anything?

Posted by: carelessfills | December 7, 2009 4:05 PM | Report abuse

I am seeing a pattern here:
First it was "GLOBAL WARMING"
Next it was termed "CLIMATE CHANGE" due to lack of evidence of consistant warming,
now it has become "CLIMATE SHIFT". How much more vague can they get? This whole thing is total junk science!

Posted by: sweetius | December 7, 2009 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Nice to see another Washington Post Apologist at work. Pay no attention to those damning emails from the CRU that admit they can't explain the cooling going on the last 10 years. Never mind that there are tens of thousands of scientists that question the so called science of global warming/climate change/the name du jour. Well, here's another story the Post is missing: Another Climate Scandal http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Oh-no-Another-climate-scam-scandal-this-time-in-Denmark-78510842.html Oh, and of course all theses self important Poo bahs could have done a tele-conference. What a nice example that would have set. But then all those nice prostitutes in Copenhagen wouldn't get any takers on their offer of freebies for attendees. On a serious note, I think its absolute idiocy that these people want the US and the west to give over billions to the developing nations to clean up their pollution. Don't we already give them billions by buying their products? Here's an idea - why don't they take this money and CLEAN UP THEIR OWN MESS!!! We already have 17% unemployment here - don't give me that bogus 10% number that just counts those on the unemployment roles. We don't need more job losses.

Posted by: lostein | December 7, 2009 4:24 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand how liberals can't read the writing on the wall.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aXRBOxU5KT5M

IT'S ABOUT MONEY, not the environment.

Posted by: johnnyneuron | December 7, 2009 4:25 PM | Report abuse

I think that a more effective focus and approach for the global warming issue would be one of energy conservation and usage, along with International security related to that.

It's much harder to argue against implementing effective energy policy - most people are for that though they differ in the ways to achieve it. Effective energy policy is also a long term economic positive.

I do 'believe' in global warming - you don't put billions of people and animals in a closed system (the atmosphere) and not have them affect it. My hope is that we will get lucky and just have GW offset an overdue ice age. If not, and Earth turns into a mini-Venus, then we don't belong in the Universe.

Posted by: mike21 | December 7, 2009 4:46 PM | Report abuse

stromberg, what dont you understand that its the american people through their representatives who decide whether or not a certain level warming effects are "too risky" or not.

scientists simply inform (when there not busy pushing self-serving agendas that keep the spigot of taxpayer grants flowing), the public decides.

if you cant get that straight you shouldnt be published anywhere bud.

Posted by: dummypants | December 7, 2009 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Ah, God, this is tiresome. So Climate-gate doesn't "undermine the massive body of evidence -- from the geological record to ice cores to tree rings to direct temperature measurement to contemporary events -- that the world is warming?" Sir, precisely what is this "massive" body of evidence? The one tree ring in Siberia? What "direct temperature measurements?" The ones fudged to made a decline look like a rise, or was it the subterfuge used to totally eliminate the Middle Warming Period? Ice cones I'll have to give you -- for now --because I just don't know, but what is this yammering in tongues about the corruption discovered at the CRU not obviating the"massive" evidence elsewhere? Who else is there who doesn't know that it is from CRU that all the lemming-like calculations elsewhere were ultimately either derived or emulated? I give you the infamous
"hockey stick" for one thing. There was a time when a Post reporter would have been fired on the spot for this sort of twaddle which the City Desk would have caught and burned. Now it's no use: another one would just take his place. Mr. Wiggins, you must be turning over in your grave.

Posted by: hoya72 | December 7, 2009 4:59 PM | Report abuse

""Except that the handful of ill-chosen phrases, even when twisted and taken out of context, don’t undermine the massive body of evidence -- from the geological record to ice cores to tree rings to direct temperature measurement to contemporary events -- that the world is warming, likely due to human activity and possibly to very dangerous effect.""

Twisted? Taken out of context? The only thing taken out of context and twisted is the MSM's coverage of this hoax and the tiny affect even the strongest believers confirm, will come from spending trillions. The author should be better informed before writing on a topic he is clearly ill-qualified. The ice cores, tree rings, temperature measurements and tie to human activity have been debunked. Does this guy also drive a SUV and fly around in a private plane. These hypocrites are amazing.

Posted by: Tostitos | December 7, 2009 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Newspapers and news organizations around the world join today in unity to censor the email of thugs who are extorting US taxypayer money for their limos and prostitutes in Copenhagen.

Unite.

Posted by: Cornell1984 | December 7, 2009 5:15 PM | Report abuse

The real scandal is the near-total absence of proven, repeatable, honestly peered-reviewed facts at the table...
I fear they have been intentionally crowded out by politicists (politicians spouting science without credentials)... with an agenda to promote rather than science to discuss.
At least the media and the liberal political class can be sure to get something out of this carbonanza event. We'll observe the event by freezing out patooties off all over the country.

Posted by: dbsinOakRidge | December 7, 2009 5:28 PM | Report abuse

If I recall rightly, the inner core of our earth is made up of molten lava. This lava often spews to the surface, creating unbearable heat aroud it. Maybe AL Gore and his dim witted friends could do something about nature and quit worrying about man made miniscule warming that may be cause by manind. We are in more danger of a meteor hitting earth from out of space than man made Globla Shift!

Posted by: glhky1 | December 7, 2009 5:47 PM | Report abuse

After 8 LOST years with Bush, I am so proud to see America LEADING.
Thank you, Obama!

The real embarrassment is America's Rightist media pundits and Republican politicians claiming "climate change is a hoax."
But they're also stupidly entertaining since the "decline" mentioned in the hacked emails refers to the decline in the temperature of tree rings - NOT the climate.
LOL
This is fully explained in the emails BEFORE and AFTER the "decline" email.

Even funnier is the Deniers being tricked by scientists' lingo and use of the word "trick" in a zillion credible scientific articles.

Posted by: angie12106 | December 7, 2009 5:56 PM | Report abuse

"..... the handful of ill-chosen phrases, even when twisted and taken out of context, don’t undermine the massive body of evidence -- from the geological record to ice cores to tree rings to direct temperature measurement to contemporary events -- that the world is warming, likely due to human activity and possibly to very dangerous effect."

And this is conclusive from a WaPo writer? There are plenty of these "skeptics" with outstanding credentials who do not go along with this massive propaganda campaign for global warming. Personally, I take my clues from the "major authority," Al Gore, whose "activities" -jet plane travel, mansion maintenance, energy consumption and more-- would suggest that the "dangerous effect" is only for those who have been snookered by Al and friends.

Posted by: pjcafe | December 7, 2009 6:14 PM | Report abuse

I just read Stromberg for the first and last time.

This piece reads as though Mr. Stromberg's has spent more time reading the coverup talking points than he has the actual e-mails (of which there are thousands).

A look beyond the "trick" e-mail reveals pro-AGW scientists both admitting doubt and agonizing over the sloppiness of some of their pro-AGW colleagues.

I believe there are more questions than answers about climate and related feedbacks. I hope most would agree that the climate is always changing and so is the science.

Today a new study finds some species of trees are experiencing growth spurts in which they absorb more carbon than anticipated.

Two weeks ago NBC Nightly News reported on new Ice Core samples that showed a 20 degree warming in just over two years! Before the industrial age! Dorthe Dahl-Jensen the lead researcher on project said: "If you asked anyone with a climate model can this happen - they would say no way the climate system can behave like that."

Models are flawed. Nature adapts. Can it adapt to the amount of carbon added by our industrial societies? A good question that deserves a good answer based in sound science.

Sadly, Climategate demonstrates that huge corners have been cut, internal doubts exist, and there are many legitimate scientists who believe we still have much more to learn.

Let's lessen our dependence on oil. It's good for national security and is a hedge in the event AGW is the threat some would have us believe it is. But let's do so in a way that doesn't destroy our economies without really knowing we must.

Shame on those who think we know all there is to know about the climate.

Posted by: cfp1 | December 7, 2009 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Fact:
Conference makes no difference in our future.
Why?
Because the earth is finite and can support a fixed number of human beings. Wee have already exceeded that number --- and our CURRENT rate of growth is STILL EXPONENTIAL.

We-in the Biological specialties of ecology and reproduction have been trumpeting that sad information for decades, but far too many humans are as ignorant of the human bomb disaster as is the DARK AGES TOTALLY SCIENCE IGNORANT POPE!

Posted by: lufrank1 | December 7, 2009 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Dear Angie 12106,

Please be kind enough to reproduce here one -- just one -- other instance of the use of the word "trick" which you blithely assert to be a a scientific term of art that exists in "a zillion scientific articles," much as, I presume, Attila the Hun's explanation to Pope Leo in the middle of a river of his concept of "eminent domain" was doubtless a geopolitcal term of art. As you're so certain they exist, am I actually to presume that you've read them, and that, further, you under- stand them, a claim that I fear would test the outermost
borders of credibility.

Posted by: hoya72 | December 7, 2009 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Discussion yes, money spent on "correcting" the problems...yet truly undetermined...stupid. Somebody needs to wake up and see that Al Gore and those like him are generating cash for themselves in the name of "environmental protection". Who said the world was supposed to last forever anyway...thank about that one!

Posted by: ProudAmerican1 | December 7, 2009 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Why does the denial crowd care so little about our national security? The Pentagon - those commie-pinko America-hating generals with flowers in their hair - is quite concerned about climate change creating conditions for massive unrest and violence that would be a risk to this country.

Yet the self-styled "patriots" here (who really are just patriotic to their little "nations of one" and their bloated SUVs) don't give a damn. Why do they hate America so?

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1730759_1731383_1731632,00.html

Posted by: B2O2 | December 7, 2009 9:35 PM | Report abuse

The data is unreliable. There is not a massive body of evidence.


You have been fooled.


That is the embarassment.

Have you really evaluated the data - made a reasonable determination as to what is good and what has been fabricated?


EXACTLY WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO MAKE THIS DETERMINATION ????

You have no facts.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 7, 2009 9:39 PM | Report abuse

In the 1990s, we ran our air-conditioner for days on end during the hot humid Canadian summers in Southern Ontario.

The last few years ? Hardly at all.

Our winter vacations in Cuba and islands further south have been uncomfortably cool these last few years. My sister in Paris lost her winter flowers last year due to record cold.

How do the expert models predict such cooling across the Northern Hemisphere ?

They don't... according to the leaked emails and frustrated "experts".

How do these experts explain the very warm period from 900AD to 1300AD ? ...when apricots grew in Poland, vineyards in Southern England, and Vikings settlers grew corn and apples in lush coastal valleys along the now-desolate Greenland coast.

They have no answer. Yet we are supposed to believe their non-predictive models "tweaked" for two decades now.. require us to spend trillions over the next century.

Only liberals and BIG Government could possibly be happy at this monstrosity called climate change.

Posted by: pvilso24 | December 7, 2009 9:42 PM | Report abuse

We need to ignore any warnings from the United Nations. They were wrong about Swine Flu and they are wrong about man-made global warming. They feel compelled to issue the most dire warnings which are based far more on politics than science. Their tactics are based primarily on fear based exaggeration and propaganda.

It is dangerous for the health of our planet to lump everything "environmental" into the climate change basket, and then count on climate-fear to motivate the public. This approach is bound to backfire.

Posted by: alance | December 7, 2009 9:42 PM | Report abuse

pvilso24, I don't know if you're aware, but you're repeating one of the favorite red herrings of the obfuscation/delay/denial crowd (otherwise known as a "lie").

The "medieval warm period" was just a hemispheric, not a global, phenomenon. And even if it weren't, take a look at the graph on this wiki page. The very sharp, sudden (in historical time) warming we've seen recently dwarfs even that hemispheric effect.

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

Initial research on the MWP and the following Little Ice Age (LIA) was largely done in Europe, where the phenomenon was most obvious and clearly documented. It was initially believed that the temperature changes were global.[2] However, this view has been questioned; the 2001 IPCC report summarises this research, saying "…current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries".[3] Global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that, taken globally, the Earth may have been slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm Period' than in the early- and mid-20th century.[4] Crowley and Lowery (2000) [5] note that "there is insufficient documentation as to its existence in the Southern hemisphere."

Posted by: B2O2 | December 7, 2009 9:55 PM | Report abuse


"...most politicians, at least, don't have the time for carbon-neutral train rides or a biodiesel-fueled “climate caravan” to Copenhagen."

OMG! You don't really think THEY would lower themselves to take some sort of public transport, do you? THEY are too powerful and busy, busy, busy.

Posted by: waterfrontproperty | December 7, 2009 10:42 PM | Report abuse

What is really clear is that we need new representatives in our government. The 2010 elections cannot get here soon enough to start running these nimrods out of office. Red or Blue vote for fiscally responsible candidates in 2010.

Posted by: Bubbette1 | December 7, 2009 10:53 PM | Report abuse

It's absurd to hear people who know absolutely nothing about environmental studies or the methods behind the climate research declare it "junk science" with smug certainty.

Yeah, some British scientists wrote frustrated emails to one another and dumbly referred to regular statistical averaging methods as a "trick" (awful word choice), but that doesn't mean the independent work of literally tens of thousands of other scientists around the world is invalid.

When the choice is between James Inhofe's comically uninformed rejection of global warming and scientists' sometimes-overly-fervent support of strong scientific evidence, I go with the latter.

And, by the way, to the guy who said global-warming warnings are somehow Orwellian: sometimes, when the overwhelming the evidence supports a position, like climate change, it's okay to say it exists. No one's keeping you from expressing your opinion. Please relax.

To those who say the scientists are biased for more funding: if they needed the money, they'd have claimed global warming evidence was still undecided and that they needed more research. Instead, they unequivocally said climate change was real. That means less research money for them in the future.

Last: to anyone who says greenhouse-gas regulations threaten the economy: the impact would be minimal compared to the economic threats of climate change.

In sum: don't just deny it because you don't like environmentalists or taxes. Look at the actual evidence from a non-biased source (Sean Hannity doesn't count), and make a scientific, not emotional, judgment.

Posted by: Akger117 | December 7, 2009 10:59 PM | Report abuse

Actually, sweetius, it wasn't the scientists who changed the terminology. It was Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who produced a report saying, among other things, that Republicans should say "climate change" instead of "global warming" because the latter is "scary". "Climate change" he said, "sounds like going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale."

Posted by: chrisd3 | December 7, 2009 11:01 PM | Report abuse

@hoya72:

Search Google Scholar for papers with the word "trick" in just the title. These are from the first TWO pages of results. There are 2,780 total hits.

"The Kernel Trick for Distance"
"A trick for the design of FIR half-band filters."
"A simple trick to facilitate bleeding control after percutaneous hemodialysis fistula …"
"The Cayley trick, lifting subdivisions and the Bohne-Dress theorem on zonotopal ..."
"Portable multithreading: The signal stack trick for user-space thread creation"
"Trick maneuvers in cervical dystonia"
"Exploiting the kernel trick to correlate fragment ions for peptide identification via …"
"Twisted actions and a new version of the Packer-Raeburn stabilization trick"

Any more questions?

Posted by: chrisd3 | December 7, 2009 11:11 PM | Report abuse

waterfrontproperty snorted:

"OMG! You don't really think THEY would lower themselves to take some sort of public transport, do you? THEY are too powerful and busy, busy, busy."

Joe Biden rode the public train in from Delaware nearly every day of his career in the US Senate. Gore actually drives hybrids. Your cynicism is hip in the denials circles, but, as usual, doesn't jive well with reality.

Posted by: B2O2 | December 7, 2009 11:21 PM | Report abuse

@hoya72:

Did you not notice the word "real" in that sentence? Where he said that he used the "REAL temps to hide the decline"? So, what decline do you think he's talking about? If you think it's an actual decline in temperatures, how do you go about hiding it by using real temperatures?

Answer: You can't. He's not talking about hiding an actual decline in temperatures.

Another question: If he were actually hiding something in the sense you're thinking, why would he disclose exactly what he did in the paper he's talking about?

Answer: He wouldn't. But he did.

You need to do some more reading and research. You won't understand this stuff by just listening to Fox News and reading amateur blogs.

Posted by: chrisd3 | December 7, 2009 11:25 PM | Report abuse

@hoya72:

The previous comment is in response to your comment about "The [tree ring data] fudged to made a decline look like a rise". I don't know why the quote didn't appear in my response...it was there...

Posted by: chrisd3 | December 7, 2009 11:28 PM | Report abuse

@hoya72 and chrisd3 -

Furthermore, Jones isn't even calling that a "trick" in a *published paper*. He's writing a freaking EMAIL to a colleague he knows well. How formal a language do YOU use in your everyday emails to co-workers you know and trust (question to Hoya72)?

Hoya72, you people are really off the deep end with this stuff - even compared to the usual delusional denier state. You really need to get a hold of yourselves.

Posted by: B2O2 | December 8, 2009 12:32 AM | Report abuse

Firt: None of these developing countries have any expertize in the global warmin/climate change/climate shift, but they want us to pay them in penalties so that they can use this money to start emitting production pollution.

Second: Tens of thousand of scientist are now contradicting unsupporting and fraudulant findings.

Third: There is now a 13 year old Indian girl all of a sudden became an expert in this circus.

Whats next? I bet there is going to be a chimpanzee scolding us on TV next week on Global Warming........

I AM LMFAO...........

Posted by: emenot | December 8, 2009 3:00 AM | Report abuse

In the begining, they blamed it on freon, now they blamed in on Co2(a harmless gass we have in soft drinks). Now they are using a 13 year old expert from a developing country to warn us of the end of the world. Maybe next week, a chimpanzee will scold us in sign language. Instead of using factual and proven data, they using stupid people to insult us????

Posted by: emenot | December 8, 2009 3:13 AM | Report abuse

DRY ICE IS FROZEN Co2, every country in the world makes them.............ITS HARMLESS!!!

Posted by: emenot | December 8, 2009 3:15 AM | Report abuse

@emenot:

"In the begining, they blamed it on freon, now they blamed in on Co2(a harmless gass we have in soft drinks)."

You're confused. CFCs such as freon were and are blamed for ozone depletion, not global warming. (CFCs are ALSO greenhouse gases, but probably not one of the primary factors in global warming.)

As for CO2 being a harmless gas, things can sometimes be harmful even if they aren't poisonous. Water isn't poisonous, but you can still drown in it.

Posted by: chrisd3 | December 8, 2009 6:07 AM | Report abuse

"In the begining, they blamed it on freon, now they blamed in on Co2(a harmless gass we have in soft drinks)."

You can say that, but you don't have any actual evidence for it.

And please don't mention the Petition Project. Anyone can sign that thing because they don't check your credentials. Furthermore, they consider anyone with a BS to be a "scientist". That means they think that your vet, your pediatrician, and quite possibly the nurse who gave your last blood test are all "scientists".

Posted by: chrisd3 | December 8, 2009 6:12 AM | Report abuse

Arggh. In the previous comment, the quote I was responding to wasn't "harmless CO2", it was:

"Tens of thousand of scientist[s] are now contradicting unsupporting and fraudulant findings."

Posted by: chrisd3 | December 8, 2009 7:46 AM | Report abuse

Yes, the politicians are trumping one another in all sacrifices they promise...
and it’s always someone else (not the politicians) who has to make
the sacrifice.

Whatever about the CO2 issue,

There is no energy shortage
(given renewable/nuclear development possibilities, with CO2 emission
limits set as deemed necessary)
and consumers – not politicians – PAY for energy and how they wish to use it.
Notice: If there WAS an energy shortage, its price rise would
– limit people using it anyway, and make renewable energy more attractive
– make energy efficient products more attractive to buy.
No need to legislate for it.
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc2x


And since when do Light Bulbs, TV sets etc give out any CO2 gas?
Not like cars.
And cars are taxed.
They could of course tax the bulbs etc, and lower the tax on energy
efficient alternatives.
Governments make money on the reduced sales, they can pay for CO2
emission processing and renewable energy, and consumers keep choice.
Taxation can be lifted when enough low emission energy is in place.

The taxes are unjustified, but better for all than bans.

Few seem to know about the industrial profit politics behind the
supposedly environmentally justified Light Bulb and other bans
http://www.ceolas.net/#li1ax

Posted by: Lighthouse99 | December 8, 2009 8:54 AM | Report abuse

Someone commented that Al Gore drives hybrid automobiles. Now, could someone explain to me how come he and partners received $500,000,000 in a loan from the U.S. government to build an electric car factory in Finland. The car in question retails for $89,000 and is an all-electric vehicle. Perhaps someone might wish to invest in such a company, but how come such a huge sum is being loaned by the U.S. government for that purpose?

Posted by: sailhardy | December 8, 2009 9:08 AM | Report abuse

Is "over reacting" your word for an agreement among scientists to falsify data, and to prevent access to peer reviewed journals?

Posted by: BobPolicy | December 8, 2009 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Anyone convinced that "Climategate" is a 'tempest in a teacup', as Nature put it, should view this:
http://www.cfact.tv/2009/12/07/lord-monckton-on-climategate-at-the-2nd-international-climate-conference/

Posted by: OttoDog | December 8, 2009 9:55 AM | Report abuse

"Now, could someone explain to me how come [Gore] and partners received $500,000,000 in a loan from the U.S. government"

Sure, but that's not a very good description of what actually happened.

Fisker Automotive received a DOE loan under a Bush-era program designed to encourage R&D on fuel-efficient vehicles (Ford got a much bigger loan under the same program, by the way). One of many investors in Fisker is the investment firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, of which Gore is a partner. So Gore is one of many partners in KPCB, which is one of many investors in Fisker. That hardly makes Fisker "Gore's car company", as conservatives like to say.

"to build an electric car factory in Finland."

No. Fisker is very much an American company, with principal locations in California and Michigan. It is simply contracting out the actual manufacture of the car to an existing Finnish concern. The manufacture of cars is only a small part of an auto company, and the loan is not to "build" a plant (which already exists anyway). It is for development of the car.

"The car in question retails for $89,000 and is an all-electric vehicle"

No again. That's a different model, also made by Fisker, and already available. The loan will be used for development of a new model that will sell in the $40,000 range (my wife's minvan cost more than that). Furthermore, Tesla Motors, in which Gore has no interest, also got a loan--and its car sells for over $100,000.

Posted by: chrisd3 | December 8, 2009 10:31 AM | Report abuse

@lighthouse99:

"And since when do Light Bulbs, TV sets etc give out any CO2 gas?"

Wow.

They don't. But burning coal to generate the electricity to run them sure does.

Posted by: chrisd3 | December 8, 2009 10:34 AM | Report abuse

@BobPolicy:

"Is 'over reacting' your word for an agreement among scientists to falsify data, and to prevent access to peer reviewed journals?"

The problem with that is, there's absolutely nothing in the emails to justify either of these claims.

If you think there is, let's see the quotes.

Posted by: BobPolicy |

Posted by: chrisd3 | December 8, 2009 10:36 AM | Report abuse

I laugh every time I hear a politician or an activist tell me that doing what they tell me to do will "save the planet."

No, CO2 does not come from light bulbs or TV sets, but then not all electrical generation comes from coal, and even if it did my using less electricity in my home is not going to "save" anything.

Since electricity is not a storable commodity given our current infrastructure, all my using less electricity will do is leave more for others to use, like Al Gore and his house that burns enough electricity to light up Cleveland.

The U.S. gets electricity from hydro electric, coal, gas, nuclear, solar and wind, but this entire arguement is not about any of that, it is about the real "power" in politics, which is "MONEY."

Obama stated that with his plan for carbon trades, the price of coal produced power would "necessarily skyrocket" proving that even Obama knows that this is not about the environment, but instead about cash.

The U.S. has the ability to abandon foreign oil, and coal, but the same brainless environmentalists that condemn coal, and CO2 (which is NOT a greenhouse gas but is in reality plant food) also condemn green alternatives, Solar is not the answer as it pollutes more than it provides when the manufacture of soalr panels is examined, and wind would work but the environmentalists don't like the looks of the windmils, that leaves nuclear wich Europe has been expanding by leaps and bounds, environuts don't like it because it is dangerous, unfortunately they are sill living in the 1970's as far as nuclear is concerned and have not doen their homework to see that nuclear is a lot safer than it was when TMI occured.

The bottom line is that the environmentalists wasn all of us to "use less" so that they can have more and the environment is a secondary concern to the profits they can extract by political means. In the end it is not about conservation, it is about CONTROL OF OTHERS.

Posted by: jonweiss1 | December 8, 2009 10:53 AM | Report abuse

The real scandal is the refusal of the US media to provide hard evidence to support its` bias that human activity is not just a "likely" cause,but THE primary cause of climate change.It`s no wonder the Kyoto Treatly was soundly defeated by a 95 to 0 vote some years ago.

Posted by: bowspray | December 8, 2009 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Let's just shovel through this garbage:-

"The world has come to a fork in the road." Yes, jdonner2 , it has. The choice is between the selfishness of our generation vs. the future of our children and grandchildren. You would insist on the freedom to sell your children down the river, for a few more years of comfort. Shame on you.

And, sweetius, how ignorant can you get? 'First it was "GLOBAL WARMING"
Next it was termed "CLIMATE CHANGE" due to lack of evidence of consistant warming,
now it has become "CLIMATE SHIFT". How much more vague can they get? This whole thing is total junk science!' There is absolutely no contradiction here. Global Warming == Climate Change == Climate Shift. Average global temperatures will rise (have risen), but won't mean that every spot on earth will be equally warmer. It does mean that climates will change and shift - often unpredictably.

And, dummypants, 'what dont you understand that its the american people through their representatives who decide whether or not a certain level warming effects are "too risky" or not.' What you don't seem to understand is the the American people and their representatives are perfectly capable of getting it wrong - especially when misled by ignorant bloggers. The scientists know what they're talking about; you don't.


Posted by: strum | December 8, 2009 10:59 AM | Report abuse


The scandal is that this is all a dog and pony show anyway. Politicians keep their jobs by delivering the good life to constiuents. Currently and for the indeterminate future, that requires combustion.

This reality will not be negated by words on a paper. This is all for show and no go. The open question is how far down some politicians will be willing to push their economies in this effort before being replaced in the next election or revolution.

Posted by: edbyronadams | December 8, 2009 11:00 AM | Report abuse

The most bizarre thing about the climate change discussion currently is how and why the emails were stolen.

Did some climate change opposer/poseur do a Jackie Chan, and break into the scientist's office at night, or did he just karate kick his way in during the day and hall off the computer?

Posted by: berniesilverman | December 8, 2009 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Tim Patterson,paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Posted by: kitzdakat | December 8, 2009 11:14 AM | Report abuse

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential.""I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."

Posted by: kitzdakat | December 8, 2009 11:16 AM | Report abuse

GEE, i wonder how HUGE the carbon footprint is for these self-aggrandizing bunch of hypocrites. From all the limos, jets and electricity they're wasting, to all the trees dead to make all their c-r-a-p, documents, flyers, and decorations.

Why don't they admit what this conference in Copenhagen really is: A BUNCH OF RICH LATTE LIBERALS MASTUR-BATING THEMSELVES IN FIVE STAR CONFERENCE ROOMS.

Posted by: TonyV1 | December 8, 2009 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."

Posted by: kitzdakat | December 8, 2009 11:18 AM | Report abuse

This is VERY BAD NEWS for Obama.

Since CO2 is a poison (according the SCOTUS) Obamas next "Beer Summit" will have to be conducted with flat beer, since the CO2 in the foam of beer will soon be illegal to produce.

Posted by: jonweiss1 | December 8, 2009 11:27 AM | Report abuse

WAPO should find another great scandal reporter to tell us the tale of the nuclear rod reclaimation project scrubbed in the USA , and used everywhere else in the World.
How about a reporter to expose the cheat by the Fed's plants that paid all that money ( via the people's bills) for a repository to deal with spent rods that the Feds never built? Carter was the reason.

Why is the most toxic substance known to man just sitting on the surface in cheesy concrete casements stacked up at plant locations in the USA?
These concrete cubicle housings were meant to be transported to a deposit center for safe confinement.
OOOOPPPPSSSSS!!It never got built. Carter was the reason.

This whole flea circus scam is like DARE, which had exactly the opposite effect people thought that they were getting. Clinton was the reason.
Get to it WAPO.

Posted by: dottydo | December 8, 2009 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Undoubtedly it's true... Indeed the planet has been warming for the past few hundred years. Oh! If only we could bend mother nature to our will and return to those past eras of the Little Ice age (marked by the Irish potato famine), or the earlier cool spell called the dark ages, or the one before that that coincided with the black death and the demise of the Roman Empire.

But alas, we are being propelled helplessly into the morass of a warming trend much like those in our past that brought us the rise of agriculture, the rise of Rome, and the age of enlightenment. Why oh why don't we all jump on the climate-change hysteria band wagon and push our government to give all our wealth away to countries who hate us. WRONG!!!!!

What the heck are they teaching in school these days? I'm sure it's all about the latest fad and whatever junk science or hysteria that is popular at the moment. What ever happened to healthy skepticism and freedom of debate, and a true desire to seek an ever elusive truth? Is there still coursework in journalism or did they change the name to pop-culture?

Go ahead and take your pick... I am either an enlightened skeptic or a cranky old man. But I am not buying any of it. It's not that I am stuck back in the 80's and still waiting for the coming ice age, but I've seen so may fad flip-flops over the years that I the only thing I can get excited about these days is a healthy contrarian viewpoint. And further more... For all you morons out there that think you can bend mother nature to you beck and call (and to have the fool hardy idea that you think you know better for what's good and what's not)... Go ahead and keep urinating directly upwind. You really need a graphic learning experience. But don't foist your pet nonsense on me.

Posted by: donclampett | December 8, 2009 11:33 AM | Report abuse

The fact that we have warmed over the last century is undeniable. There is clear scientific measurements that prove it. The involvement of 'greenhouse' gases in that warming is the debate here. There are no scientific experiments that conclusively correlate greenhouse gas in the atmosphere to the warming. There is evidence that shows a pattern, but there is also evidence that shows the pattern is not consistent. There is no magic bullet. Did we evolve from apes? or did Apes and Humans evolve from the same species? There are legitimate scientific communites that support both theories. There is nothing that conclusively says one thing or the other. The same can be said about what is now called 'Climate Change Theory'. The loudness of the presenters has nothing to do with the validity of their claims. Proponents of the 'greenhouse' gas theory say so what doing something is better than doing nothing. This is a huge gamble. If the warming is man made and if it turns out to be something besides 'greenhouse' gas, you waste a tremendous amount of resource fighting the wrong the problem. This leave far less resources left over to fight the real problem.

I also find it hard to swallow that major research organizations that are proponents hand over gloom and doom reports in one hand while simultaneously asking for money to study the problem with the other. The skeptics seem to be just fighting to be heard. Proponents will claim that is becuase they are being paid by polluters to say these things. Some of it is probabbly true, but its not universal.

Bottom line evidence doesn't lie. When you actively try to supress it, not matter how concerted or beneign that effort is, it damages the integrity of science. Let both sides have an open debate forum and present their best evidence.

Posted by: akmzrazor | December 8, 2009 11:36 AM | Report abuse

"Remember, about 75% of the members of the UN are authoritian regemes of one sort or another and Obama wants to submit you to their control. The future of the free world is at stake here. Choose carefully.

----------------------------------------

What the heck are you talking about? No one is submitting anything to anyone's control. Its called America taking a lead on something. Obviously the right has forgotten that America can be leaders.

Posted by: jjj141 | December 8, 2009 11:41 AM | Report abuse

to ProudAmerican1 :

Have you seen who is funding the opposition to this?

Exxon Mobil, Shell, Koch Industries, AmericaN Petroleum Institute..shall I go on.

Posted by: jjj141 | December 8, 2009 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Call it what you wish. Whether or not "climate change" is real is not the issue. The issue is the continued reliance on carbon based energy sources. These sources are finite in quantity. They are non-renewable. When they are gone (and they WILL BE very soon, as far as the human species is concerned) they are gone for good. If there is no other viable way for us to generate the energy we need to sustain ourselves then we will disapear from the Earth soon after. We need to move towards new, renewable energy. If we don't soon, whatever happens to our planet will no longer be our concern; for we will no longer be here.
THIS is crossroads we now face. The choice is ours to make. Do, or die.

Posted by: KJR1 | December 8, 2009 11:53 AM | Report abuse

People don't travel in order to attend meetings. They attend meetings in order to travel.

If there is no travel involved, the meeting doesn't count, and no one has any interest.

If folks didn't want to use video-conferencing, then the meeting wasn't important in the first place.

Posted by: oracle2world | December 8, 2009 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Hey Stromberg, you should send some time reading the email. I have.

Posted by: FredKnowsBest | December 8, 2009 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Stromberg pronounces that "it’s irresponsible to claim absolute certainty about complex science". And yet, in this article, he leaves no doubt in our minds that global warming is due to human activity. What a joke!

Posted by: jahoby | December 8, 2009 12:23 PM | Report abuse

State run MSM has so conveniently dismissed the emails that indicate some of the climate data was manipulated to show the climate change agenda and that critics were marginalized by academic review. But the public gets it as the polls indicate. The public sees the climate change agenda as a way for 3rd world nations to bring the industrial world down by forcing the inductrial countries to pay for climate change solutions in the 3rd world. This is the Obama and UN goal of wealth redistribution. It plays perfectly into Obama's campaign promise. And if the Congress won't do it the EPA will. It is not really about the climate, it is about the power that control of the worlds wealth brings to Obama and the UN. The public understand the data was manipulated and a neutral panel of scientists should re-examine all the raw data to determine what the true results are. Only then will the public accept this overt power grab by the UN. The Dems will suffer the consequences at the hands of the voters.

Posted by: jschmidt2 | December 8, 2009 12:37 PM | Report abuse

its not about climate change, its about control, europe control of the world via the fake man made global warming.

Posted by: infantry11b4faus | December 8, 2009 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Stromberg, the CRU has admitted destroying 150 years of original world temperature data, and replacing it with data they manipulated to reach the conclusions they wanted. They have admitted faking (read inflating) the world's temperature data for ten of the last eleven years. They have admitted preventing peer reviews, which would show that their conclusions are not accurate, from being published. They have admitted getting scientists and journalists that did not agree with them fired from their jobs. How can the UN or any other scientific body even consider relying an any data they produce?

As for contemporary events: 2009 is the coolest year in the past decade; the summer of 2009 was the coolest summer in the US in recorded history, while the arctic ice melted in 2008 it has returned with a vengeance in 2009; the antarctic ice cap is how at its deepest in recorded history; the winter of 2009, in the US, is proving to be the coldest in recorded history - areas in the West are getting snow this winter that have never gotten snow in the past, or sooner than in past years.

Contemporary events seem to be demonstrating that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by people who plan to profit from it, not a scientific fact.

Posted by: mike85 | December 8, 2009 12:39 PM | Report abuse

"State run MSM has so conveniently dismissed the emails that indicate some of the climate data was manipulated to show the climate change agenda and that critics were marginalized by academic review."

State your evidence for either of these claims.

What data were "manipulated to show the climate change agenda"? How do you know this?

What serious critics were "marginalized by academic review"? How do you know this?

Don't send us links to some blogger. Tell us in your own words.

Posted by: chrisd3 | December 8, 2009 12:52 PM | Report abuse

This guy's a hoaxer. What a dolt.

Posted by: DaMan2 | December 8, 2009 12:52 PM | Report abuse

CO2 is .0385% of the atmosphere.

Almost all of it is from natural sources.

We couldn't do much to change that if we tried.

Climate change is a historical fact: see the Little Ice Age as well as the Roman and the Medieval Warm Periods.

The glaciers on Greenland kicked the Vikings off the coastline and now are receding (although those in the center of the island are growing thicker).

Money spent on stopping it is wasted. You might as well try to stop continental drift.

Making energy more expensive will make it harder to adapt. The poor will suffer the most.

Posted by: NeverLeft | December 8, 2009 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Reading these posts I am so embarrassed. Americans are and have been the biggest polluters on earth for ash long as memory can go. I grew up in Switzerland and I can assert that the glaciers over there have shrunk a lot over the past 30 years. Two years ago the Arctic passage was open to navigation for the first time in memory. Now I came to the US as a scientist because this country does not know what science is and need to import some from abroad. Science will never be able to propose the kind of certainty the Christian right claims to have about any issue including God. Science is based on a number of theories and experimental facts and people argue about the interpretation of the results. It turns out that 90% of scientists agree that the warming of the Earth is due to human activity. This has not the certainty claimed by the local Ayatollahs, that most reader of this post apparently would like to get before making a decision. What they should understand however is that in the end, on matter of climate it will turn out to be more reliable.

Posted by: benhibou | December 8, 2009 12:57 PM | Report abuse

chrisd3- just read and do you own research. The hockey stick inventor Mann from PSU manipulated data for one. I'm not a climate scientist but many of us 'non-scientists' will end of paying the bill for legislation that will be passed based on manipulated data. The scientists have lost the confidence of the public.

Posted by: jschmidt2 | December 8, 2009 12:57 PM | Report abuse

@mike85:

"the CRU has admitted destroying 150 years of original world temperature data, and replacing it with data they manipulated to reach the conclusions they wanted"

They have "admitted" no such thing. They discarded ONE set of raw data a generation ago, in the 1980s. And your contention that they have "admitted" to doing this in order to reach the conclusions they wanted is just plain made up. There's no other way to put it.

"They have admitted preventing peer reviews, which would show that their conclusions are not accurate, from being published"

Oh? How and where was this admitted?

"As for contemporary events: 2009 is the coolest year in the past decade; the summer of 2009 was the coolest summer in the US in recorded history,"

No. This is the science of GLOBAL warming, not US warming. The US covers about 1.8% of the earth's surface. A cool summer in the US could hardly be any less relevant to long-term global trends.

Globally, 2009 is on track to be the second warmest year in the instrument record, which date back to 1880. The seven months from April through October (November isn't available yet) were THE warmest in the instrument record.

Furthermore, if you actually think that data from a single year, even if it's global, can be used to disprove a long-term trend, you have a lot more reading to do. An annual temperature are not in ANY way significant to a long-term climate trend.

Posted by: chrisd3 | December 8, 2009 1:04 PM | Report abuse

chrisd2- so you are saying all the data is sound 100% correct and were not manipulated to prove the climate change agenda? As are all the conclusions? and none of the climate critics who are also scientists in any way were prevented from publishing their findings? Well the emails say diffent.

Posted by: jschmidt2 | December 8, 2009 1:09 PM | Report abuse

@NeverLeft:

"CO2 is .0385% of the atmosphere"

And ...? Did you know that one ounce of botulinum toxin is enough to kill the entire US population? Small amounts of things can be VERY important. There's no logical connection between "There isn't much of this" and "This can't have any effect."

"Almost all of it is from natural sources"

False. CO2 concentrations have increased by over 20% just since 1958, and there's no known source for this increase that isn't anthropogenic. Even the skeptics admit this.

"Climate change is a historical fact: see the Little Ice Age as well as the Roman and the Medieval Warm Periods."

And ...? Has anyone said that there aren't ALSO natural factors in climate? Does the existence of natural factors mean that there can't ALSO be human factors?

Posted by: chrisd3 | December 8, 2009 1:10 PM | Report abuse

I thought I had seen everything but nobody can top comparing the toxicity of botulism toxin and carbon dioxide.

Next, the equivalency of butterfly wings and jet engines.

Posted by: edbyronadams | December 8, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

In America, we could just start by adding $2.00-$3.00 per gallon to the price of gas, and lower corporate taxes to offset for them. Am I missing something?

Posted by: hipshot | December 8, 2009 1:15 PM | Report abuse

@jschmidt:

"chrisd2- so you are saying all the data is sound 100% correct and were not manipulated to prove the climate change agenda? As are all the conclusions? and none of the climate critics who are also scientists in any way were prevented from publishing their findings? Well the emails say diffent"

You guys are making the claim that the emails prove this stuff. Since you're making the claim, it's up to you to provide the evidence. You're not doing that; all you have done is repeat that "the emails say this."

Well, where? Specifically. Where in the emails do you find justification for the claims that data were manipulated and that scientists were prevented from publishing their findings?

Quote for me where the emails say this.

Posted by: chrisd3 | December 8, 2009 1:16 PM | Report abuse

@jschmidt2:

"chrisd3- just read and do you own research."

I've studied this for years and read mountains of material from BOTH sides. I have talked with scientists, and I have talked with skeptics. I find the scientists' arguments to be FAR more convincing. How much of what the scientists say have you actually read?

"The hockey stick inventor Mann from PSU manipulated data for one"

Oh? How? Who says so? And is there only one hockey stick, or are there dozens of them, all from different authors and all using completely different data?

The fact is, you could throw out everything Mann has ever done and it wouldn't make an iota of difference. There are mountains of evidence and thousands of papers that Mann had absolutely nothing to do with.

Posted by: chrisd3 | December 8, 2009 1:24 PM | Report abuse

"thought I had seen everything but nobody can top comparing the toxicity of botulism toxin and carbon dioxide."

Kinda missed the point there, didn't ya? I'm comparing the logic, not the toxicity.

"NeverLeft" implied that CO2 can't be important because there isn't much of it. This is a logical fallacy. Small amounts of things can be very important. The point of the botulinum toxin analogy is to show that there's no logic to that reasoning.

Compare these two statements:

"There isn't much CO2 in the air, therefore it has little effect"

"There isn't much botulinum toxin in this glass of water, therefore it's safe to drink."

The logic in the two statements is the same. Both are equally false. Get it now?

Posted by: chrisd3 | December 8, 2009 1:31 PM | Report abuse

@benhibou:

"Now I came to the US as a scientist because this country does not know what science is and need to import some from abroad"
-------
I am sorry that you have had this experience. I assure you that we are not all ignorant of science. Sometimes it just seems that way.

Posted by: chrisd3 | December 8, 2009 1:35 PM | Report abuse

How much must CO2 emissions be reduced for us to stabilize global temperatures at present levels?

Posted by: lja193481 | December 8, 2009 1:38 PM | Report abuse

How much must Carbon emissions be reduced for us to stabilize global temperatures at present levels?

Posted by: lja193481 | December 8, 2009 1:39 PM | Report abuse

The real scandal is how the right wing puts politics above the health of the Earth.

Downright shameful!

Posted by: gipper01 | December 8, 2009 1:42 PM | Report abuse

chrsid3- Look you can scream all you want. But until a neutral panel of scientists and critics have there say on the raw data available, no one is going to believe the climate change agenda. I'm not saying it climate change is not happening but how much is caused by man vs natural events. The agenda is all about the money and redistrubting the wealth of the developed nations to the 3rd world. Any hint of data manipulation taints the results.

Posted by: jschmidt2 | December 8, 2009 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Climate change....the new religion of the left.

The science is so full of holes it could be a wheel of swiss cheese at the moment, but nothing will sway the left from their ardent zealotry.

That's because it's not ABOUT the science for them. This is their article of faith.

And much like when someone attacks Islam, or Judaism or Christianity, you see the fever and fervor of climate change adherents unleashed and irrational, spouting personal attacks and discredited dogma from the Prophet Algore.

We have separation of church and state in this country. I highly recommend separation of environmentalism and state.

Posted by: etpietro | December 8, 2009 1:45 PM | Report abuse

chrisd - I admire your tenacity as much as your command of the subject. You will never change the mind of person who allows ideology to guide their opinions. Conspiracy theorists are the most impossible.

Posted by: sauerkraut | December 8, 2009 1:57 PM | Report abuse

"Except that the handful of ill-chosen phrases, even when twisted and taken out of context, don’t undermine the massive body of evidence -- from the geological record to ice cores to tree rings to direct temperature measurement to contemporary events -- that the world is warming, likely due to human activity and possibly to very dangerous effect."

What massive body of evidence are you referring too? How about the 16 climate models endorsed by the IPCC, none of which has predicted the last 10 years accurately (not even close). Perhaps you are referring to the geological records which show temperatures 5 degrees C above current temps with carbon dioxide 40 times higher than today - all with life thriving on this planet. Or maybe your tree cores, used to develop the Mann "hockey stick" which has been shown as a gross scientific manipulation of data...

All of this leading to "probable" human causes of global warming? So let's spend hundreds of billions on probably? What about the Sun's effect, the earths wobble on it's axis, our not so perfect orbit around the sun, our solar system's position in our galaxy, tectonic plate movement, volcanic action, cosmic dust, and our oceans?

Does that evidence promote an obvious conclusion that man is impacting our planet's temperature?

Or do you just take Al Gore's word for it because watching a movie is much easier than reading?

Posted by: mockymock | December 8, 2009 1:58 PM | Report abuse

I posted several qoutes form scientists that dispute global warming and there are hundreds more I can pull up, what makes their beliefs and less believable than those who support global warming? These men are not idiots.

Posted by: kitzdakat | December 8, 2009 2:05 PM | Report abuse

We should all stop a moment and consider the real facts, not politicized statements.
The Sun has been controlling the earth's weather for eons and will continue to do so after we are long gone. Look at the history of our Sun's activity, and realize that we are experiencing the longest period of recorded inactivity since 1913. A scientific treatise showing the effects of Sun activity on the Earth’s environment and in particular climate variation us available at the following web site.
If you do not relish wading through the voluminous complex calculations, please consider the Conclusions on page 15.
http://www.winningreen.com/site/files/621/52299/206275/277668/Sun&ClimChge.pdf

Posted by: leberk | December 8, 2009 2:22 PM | Report abuse

'The world has come to a fork in the road. Down one path lies freedom of expression and democracy. Down the other lies authoritianism and Orwellian thought.'

Yes, it's vital to fight the US cult of 'conservatism.'

Posted by: drindl | December 8, 2009 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Humans produce CO2 when they exhale and, even though the science is cloudy, we should abort all human children in order to reduce CO2 before it's too late. We can't let this carbon footprint grow any larger! Save the earth! Save the earth! The sky is falling!

Posted by: ktp70 | December 8, 2009 3:02 PM | Report abuse

"Look you can scream all you want. But until a neutral panel of scientists and critics have there say on the raw data available, no one is going to believe the climate change agenda"

I'm not the one who's screaming. I'm just saying that I think the scientists are right.

"It's all a hoax!!! It's the UN and the one-world government!! It's HUSSEIN Obummer and his hatred of america he wants to destroy it!! It's the scientists, they just want grants!! It's Fat Al Bore!!! It's all about the money!!". Now, THAT is screaming. You're the ones who are screaming, not me.

As for raw data, there are mountains of it. Don't make the mistake of thinking that the discarding 20 years ago of one set of old data (some of it was on paper tape, for God's sake) means that there's no data. There's piles of it. And there are tens of thousands of neutral scientists to look at it. They've done that, and continue to do so. There's a reason for the overwhelming consensus. It's called "evidence".

And since I've now asked several times for specific evidence of manipulating data and/or suppressing papers, and no one has provided any, I'm at this point going to assume that you guys can't actually do it. It sounds like you've read in conservative outlets that data were manipulated and scientists were muzzled, or maybe you heard Beck or Hannity say so, but you haven't checked it yourself. You should try. It's really not that hard.

Here's a test.

In the 1999 email that most of the so-called "skeptics" are using to "prove" that data were manipulated, Phil Jones says that he used "Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to ... to hide the decline."

Some questions to answer:

1. What decline is he talking about?

2. Why does the word "real" appear in the phrase "the real temps"? How can you hide a real decline by using real temperatures? How is that even possible?

3. In the paper Jones is referring to in the email, he clearly explains precisely what he did. Why exactly would he do that? Isn't that a pretty crappy way to hide something?

The answers are not what you think or what you've been told.

Posted by: chrisd3 | December 8, 2009 3:20 PM | Report abuse

The real scandal is how crass and ignorant most republicans/right wingers are these days.

Posted by: lauther266 | December 8, 2009 3:23 PM | Report abuse

@mockymock:

"How about the 16 climate models endorsed by the IPCC, none of which has predicted the last 10 years accurately (not even close)."

That's just plain wrong. Where on Earth did you hear that? The last ten years have been well within the forecasts' range of uncertainty.

Posted by: chrisd3 | December 8, 2009 3:28 PM | Report abuse

"Most politicains dont have time for carbon neutral train rides" well there it is in a nutshell. I dont have time to visit my family in a hospital after the govt takes my SUV and they get in an accident in the prius forced down our throats. I dont have time to fly commercial so I will take a private jet. Please. These people are disgusting hypocrites based on fake science. Remember when you were a real paper Post? Shhhhh......follow the money. Remember?

Posted by: j751 | December 8, 2009 3:28 PM | Report abuse

What you don't seem to understand is the the American people and their representatives are perfectly capable of getting it wrong - especially when misled by ignorant bloggers. The scientists know what they're talking about; you don't.
************

talk about garbage. so who gets to pick and choose the topics where democracy gives way to the imperial expert?

this should be rich...

Posted by: dummypants | December 8, 2009 4:03 PM | Report abuse

All I can say to all of the Climate Change naysayers is I sincerely hope you're all correct, that this is nothing at all to worry about...... But what if you're wrong?

Posted by: PeterPamZ | December 8, 2009 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Never have so many said so little without any experience and little or no change in atmospheric pressure for exccept Barach Obomba and his sidekick Reverand Wright.

Posted by: a4853916 | December 8, 2009 4:10 PM | Report abuse

The most effective way to personally combat climate change is to have no children; I drive a V-8 and I fly alot, but I feel no guilt, as I have no children. Your children will drive, burn things, consume, they'll probably have children who will do the same thing; so you owe me. And you're welcome.

Posted by: iphony | December 8, 2009 4:10 PM | Report abuse

From the emails - “The fact is that we cannot account for the lack of warmth at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.” Trenberth betrays a subtle bias here – he cannot acknowledge the recent period of global cooling. It is, rather, “a lack of warmth.”

I do think it is reasonable to conclude, at the margin, that human activity has had some influence. It is hard to imagine population growing from one to six billion over the past one and a half centuries without some effect. Most likely, the effect is on local and regional scales, but this might add up to a discernible impact on global temperature. But until all of the forces that determine the full range of natural climate variability are understood better than they are now, there is no scientific justification for the massive overhaul of economic and government structures being promoted under the guise of climate change, or global warming.

Posted by: Holla26 | December 8, 2009 4:12 PM | Report abuse

What you don't seem to understand is the the American people and their representatives are perfectly capable of getting it wrong - especially when misled by ignorant bloggers. The scientists know what they're talking about; you don't.
************

talk about garbage. so who gets to pick and choose the topics where democracy gives way to the imperial expert?

this should be rich...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I didn't know you couldn't do scientific inquiry or advancement without democracy...

Posted by: PeterPamZ | December 8, 2009 4:13 PM | Report abuse

the big problem here is the very precise nature of the claim that you must accept in order for a global carbon rationing scheme to make sense.

you dont simply have to believe that the earth is warming and will continue to warm and that carbon emissions is the cause of all of this.

you have to believe that the earth will warm ENOUGH to create catastrophic damage.

this is why the current decade long plateau in tempature is so important.

the models didnt predict is, and how many other plateaus will happen which the models didnt predict, and how many degrees of warming were expected during these periods? subtract those degrees of warming from the projection in 2080 and you end of avoiding the catastrophic warming that scientists say we need to do carbon rationing to avoid.

but in that case, we obviously would avoid it anyway, so carbon rationing is not needed.

Posted by: dummypants | December 8, 2009 4:15 PM | Report abuse

lauther-guess that says it all about the left- when you have nothing constructive to say-insult.

Posted by: jschmidt2 | December 8, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

What you don't seem to understand is the the American people and their representatives are perfectly capable of getting it wrong - especially when misled by ignorant bloggers. The scientists know what they're talking about; you don't.
************

talk about garbage. so who gets to pick and choose the topics where democracy gives way to the imperial expert?

this should be rich...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I didn't know you couldn't do scientific inquiry or advancement without democracy...

*********

huh? scientific advancement is not at issue. who gets to weigh the costs and benefits is at issue.

its a pretty basic distinction, it would be a real shame if you didnt grasp it.

Posted by: dummypants | December 8, 2009 4:20 PM | Report abuse

chrisd- it the scientist want the trust of the public, they need to review all the raw data, review the conclusions and present in an open and public forum and let the card fall where they may. If not the public will always suspect the conclusions and fight every inch of the way. I do believe the underlying agenda is wealth re-distribution from the developed world to the 3rd world and Obama and UN are behind it. When the US has to increase energy costs here and then send money to the 3rd world for their energy projects, where do you think the jobs will go? To the 3rd world countries. It is an economy killer.

Posted by: jschmidt2 | December 8, 2009 4:22 PM | Report abuse

The world's inevitable response will be "too little, too late". People are too eager to see a December snowfall as discrediting global warming, since they can't see the North Pole thawing from their air conditioned cars.

The oil companies are too invested in carbon emissions not to fight for short-term profits in the face of possible mass extinction. While Copenhagen may not result in the saving formula, it's better than doing what the Bush Administration did for 8 years and just sit on the data and hope for the best.

Posted by: AxelDC | December 8, 2009 4:27 PM | Report abuse

11/30/2009 3:25:16 PM
From Wall Street Journal..November 30th 2009 – News Re:Indian Glaciers..
Most suggestions of rapid melting are based on observations of a small handful of India’s 10,000 or so Himalayan glaciers. A comprehensive report in November by senior glaciologist Vijay Kumar Raina, released by the Indian government, looked more broadly and found that many of these glaciers are stable or have even advanced, and that the rate of retreat for many others has slowed recently.Jeffrey S. Kargel, a glaciologist at the University of Arizona, declared in the Nov. 13 issue of Science that these “extremely provocative” findings were “consistent with what I have learned independently,” while in the same issue of the magazine Kenneth Hewitt, a glaciologist at Wilfrid Laurier University, agreed that “there is no evidence” to support the suggestion that the glaciers are disappearing quickly. A cornerstone of the global carbon regulation push has been high concern about evidence that glaciers are retreating worldwide. Glaciers are a crucial source of the Earth’s stored water. The “star” glacier, if you will, has been the Himalayan Saichen glacier, 74 km long and the largest outside the polar regions.India’s Ministry of Environment and Forests has released a comprehensive report on the Himalayan glaciers by the eminent Dr. V.K. Raina, ex-Deputy Director of the Geological Survey of India. According to his report, the Saichen glacier has “not shown any remarkable retreat in the last 50 years.” In fact, it is growing.

Posted by: Holla26 | December 8, 2009 4:30 PM | Report abuse

While you may not see actual emissions from your TV and light bulb, they had to be manufactured at some point in a factory. The raw materials had to be mined and transported. The finished product was loaded on a ship from China and sailed to San Diego, where a big truck drove it to your big box store.

The electricity that powers it comes from burning coal, which again has to be mined and transported.

Just because you don't put out CO2 yourself, those you made and power your finished consumer goods do.

>>Posted by: Lighthouse99
And since when do Light Bulbs, TV sets etc give out any CO2 gas?
Not like cars.
And cars are taxed.
They could of course tax the bulbs etc, and lower the tax on energy
efficient alternatives.
Governments make money on the reduced sales, they can pay for CO2
emission processing and renewable energy, and consumers keep choice.
Taxation can be lifted when enough low emission energy is in place.

The taxes are unjustified, but better for all than bans.

Few seem to know about the industrial profit politics behind the
supposedly environmentally justified Light Bulb and other bans
http://www.ceolas.net/#li1ax

Posted by: AxelDC | December 8, 2009 4:31 PM | Report abuse

i seem to remember an international consensus of intelligence experts from the U.S. (under Clinton and Bush), Britain, France, etc. that Saddam Hussein still possessed the WMD's that we knew he once possessed because he used them.

this consensus was headed by people with sterling reputations like Collin Powell.

have we learned nothing if not to be skeptical of justifications of a position, not on the merits, but on "consensus" which might be nothing more than self-serving group think?

Posted by: dummypants | December 8, 2009 4:38 PM | Report abuse

The Hadley CRU data "adjustments" are the tip of the iceberg. Check out graphs of temp increases in Darwin Australia...more 'smoothing and adjusted' data. Raw data shows NO temp increase. Meanwhile, all governments and politicians have built their boondoggle climate control regulations and demands on this falsified science. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/#more-13818

Posted by: Smith5205 | December 8, 2009 4:43 PM | Report abuse

What nonsense!

CRU (Climate Research Unit) is the center of climate research and the high priests of AGW ... man caused global warming.

A recent posting in www.wattsupwiththat.com provides one of many "smoking guns"

A great analysis by Willis Eschenbach of how the Climate Research Center UK takes raw temperature data from Australia and “cleans it up” to show a 1.2 C per century warming.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/#more-13818

“Before one can reliably use such climate data for analysis of longterm climate change, adjustments are needed to compensate for the nonclimatic discontinuities.” CRU

When the raw data “unadjusted data” is simply plotted and a trend line developed, the trend is a slight 0.7 C per century cooling. And this is true when he uses other stations in Australia.

“Nonclimatic discontinuities” must mean removing or adjusting all data that might differ from a pre-established conclusion that the Earth is not warming.

Those who criticize CRU research are discounted because they are not “peer-reviewed climatologists”.

Well, I’m not a "peer reviewed farmer", but I can still smell the overpowering odor of manure generated at CRU.

Go to the above site and see the graphical evidence.

Case closed ... Fraud.


Posted by: jgfox39 | December 8, 2009 5:08 PM | Report abuse

@Holla26:

"From the emails - 'The fact is that we cannot account for the lack of warmth at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.' Trenberth betrays a subtle bias here – he cannot acknowledge the recent period of global cooling.”

No, that's not what's he's talking about. If you read the paper he references, the "travesty" he means is that we lack the instrumentation to track the flow of heat energy on Earth. Earth's environment is more than just the atmosphere; the land, oceans, and glaciers are part of it too. Heat is going into those as well as into the atmosphere, but we don't have the instruments to measure it properly. That's the travesty he's talking about. This is VERY clear if you read just the first page of the paper he links to in the email.

Posted by: chrisd3 | December 8, 2009 5:16 PM | Report abuse

kitzdakat, your science skeptics are hardly unbiased:

Tim Pattersen is a board member of FOS which claimed it received no fudning from the oil industry; that is, until the FOS CEO admitted that it receives 1/3 of its funding from oil industry.

Ian Clark an advisor to NRSP which has funding provided by energy lobbyists.

And the list goes on.

Is it a strange coincidence that many of the science skeptics are connected with the oil/gas/coal industry? Don't just talk about following the money; do it. Exxon alone spent more that $14 million financing antiglobal-warming organizations, and that is only up to 2005.

Skepticism is an important part of learning, so I suggest that the skeptics apply their skepticism to the global-warming deniers.

Chrisd3 - you are way too patient. Keep it up.

Posted by: NCindependentthinker | December 8, 2009 5:18 PM | Report abuse

I thought EJ Dionne was the biggest idiot at the Washington Post.

I was wrong.

Liberalism is a cancer on our society and our culture.

Love, ManBearPig

Posted by: manbearpig4 | December 8, 2009 5:23 PM | Report abuse

NCindependentthinker, William Grey was funded by NOAA and NASA but started having funding problems because he doesn't support the theory of global warming, which oil company is paying him off? I'd be willing to bet money that the majority of global warming supporting scientists are funded by agencies that hype up the global warming theory.

Posted by: kitzdakat | December 8, 2009 5:41 PM | Report abuse

"I seem to remember an international consensus of intelligence experts from the U.S. (under Clinton and Bush), Britain, France, etc. that Saddam Hussein still possessed the WMD's that we knew he once possessed because he used them"

Surely you're not comparing the clandestine world of secret intelligence gathering with scientific research.

Posted by: chrisd3 | December 8, 2009 6:14 PM | Report abuse

@jschidt2:

"if the scientist want the trust of the public, they need to review all the raw data, review the conclusions and present in an open and public forum and let the card fall where they may."

They do. That's what the science journals are for.

Posted by: chrisd3 | December 8, 2009 6:16 PM | Report abuse

@dummypants:

"this is why the current decade long plateau in tempature is so important. the models didnt predict [it]"

First, there is no decade-long plateau in temperature. Get the global data and graph it in Excel or whatever; you'll see. It clearly and unmistakably trends upwards, even if you don't draw a nice trend line. And it will look even worse at the end of this year, which is going to be a very, very warm year by any standard.

Second, the last decade is well within the IPCC prediction range, no matter what the amateur bloggers and TV talking heads try to tell you.

About the only thing you can say regarding the last ten years is that the upward trend isn't quite as pronounced as it was in the 90s. I don't find that especially comforting, given that we're in the low parts of various natural cycles, and it's getting warmer anyway.

Posted by: chrisd3 | December 8, 2009 6:30 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if Inhoffe and Coburn care one bit about those students at OSU?

Those students have given up on BIG OIL!

They are making and engineering WIND MILLS!

Those students are behind GREEN ENERGY!

But then again- they are students- eager to learn!

They all do not want the Dumb Down!

Remember- MURDOCH/WSJ: Dumb it Down Mr. President!

You know what is even funnier?

The USA does not even rank within the top 25 countries in the world for education!

The fact that most Americans do not own a passport- cannot read a map- FAIL in Geography is not a secret.

We suck at Science and Math!

Yesterday- Sen. Wicker from Mississippi was asked on C-Span Washington Journal why his state ranked #50 for Healthcare!

You know what his answer was?

They FAIL at education!

Ranked #50 for EDUCATION!

His excuse for being # 50 - People in Mississippi 'too stupid'! NO EDUCATION!

It is on C-span!

40% of public cannot identify 3 branches of gvt- Civically illiterate says Lou Frey R-FL!

Justice Sandra O'Connor stated Americans need CIVICS K-12! If not more!

Does anyone wonder why Murdoch asked the President of the United States to Dumb it Down!

I don't!

Posted by: sasha2008 | December 8, 2009 6:40 PM | Report abuse

@smith5205:

"The Hadley CRU data 'adjustments' are the tip of the iceberg."
------------
I'll ask you the same thing I've asked everyone else: What data adjustments? What specific evidence do you have that anyone at CRU manipulated data? And by specific, I mean relevant quotes from the emails and your understanding of them.

Don't send us to wattsupwiththat; tell us in your own words.

By the way, Hadley and CRU are two different things. The Hadley Centre is part of the UK Met Office. The Climatic Research Unit is associated with the University of East Anglia. They are independent of each other. The stolen emails came from CRU, not Hadley.

Posted by: chrisd3 | December 8, 2009 6:43 PM | Report abuse

kitzdakat,

As far as I know, Gray (not "Grey") is not funded by nor connected with the energy industry. It appears that his applications for grants to study hurricane activity are meritorious (although he famously missed calling Katrina) - indeed Gray is considered one of the old men of modern meteorology. Note that meteorology and global warming are not the same field. Could you please provide me with his publications on global warming? May I suggest that his grant applications on global warming have been rejected based on scientific merit (or lack of demonstration thereof)? It seems prudent to award a research grant (specially one funded by me and other tax payers) in a field of study to those who have demonstrated an expertise in that particular field.

I want to thank you and other AGW skeptics for suggesting that we follow the money. I did. What do you think about other skeptic champions (e.g., Clark and Pattersen that you put forward) and their connections to fossil-fuel dependent industries? What about Exxon (and others) spending millions campaigning to discredit global warming science and scientists? Who has the largest monetary motivation?

You may find it interesting to note that for 2008 Exxon Mobil reported a net income of about $45 billion, a gross income of about $200 billion and a total revenue of about $500 billion. That puts them (and remember, this is only one company) on par with Switzerland's GDP. I implore you to be skeptical of everyone's motivation.

Finally, you said you would "be willing to bet money that the majority of global warming supporting scientists are funded by agencies that hype up the global warming theory". Would you kindly name these agencies (and perhaps a representative sample of the scientists) for the purpose of our discussion?

Posted by: NCindependentthinker | December 8, 2009 9:54 PM | Report abuse

jgfox, You write that, '“Nonclimatic discontinuities” must mean removing or adjusting all data that might differ from a pre-established conclusion that the Earth is not warming.' I presume you meant 'that the Earth is warming'. I must respectfully disagree. "Nonclimatic discontinuities" most likely refer to changes in the data that are attributable to other causes, e.g., instrumentation. This means the record needs to be calibrated in order to be an accurate measure of climate. For example, suppose I kept a record of my living room temperature. If a 7 year old fiddled with the gauge and I did not notice it for a few days, I'd have to calibrate or correct the raw data to have an accurate record. Wouldn't you agree then that using this example as "case closed ... fraud" is unwarranted?

Posted by: NCindependentthinker | December 8, 2009 10:34 PM | Report abuse

Whenever the Post has run articles about carbon emitters in the WDC area, they conveniently never mentioned themselves...paper, ink, electricity, transport fuel, etc. I would love to see an honest article analyzing the true carbon footprint of the Post...I bet it is akin to a good size oil refinery or steel mill...

Posted by: dcmowbray1 | December 8, 2009 10:57 PM | Report abuse

If we are to plan for the future, we have to understand that we do not know the future. We predict the future. So, we should be ready for all possible futures. It is reasonable to expect an ice age. They usually come every ten thousand years or so after a warming trend. One is due now if you pay attention to some of the evidence.

Nothing is certain - but we need to be ready for all futures.

Otherwise this planning is half asked and flawed.

Posted by: gary4books | December 9, 2009 5:31 AM | Report abuse


See Christopher Monckton's latest presentation which is somewhat technical, but very entertaining if you've ever watched other presentations he has delivered:

http://vimeo.com/8023097

Lord Monckton is a British politician, business consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, and inventor. He served as an advisor to Margaret Thatcher's policy unit in the 1980s.

Draw your own conclusions.

Posted by: antont777 | December 9, 2009 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Monckton Says Secretive Copenhagen Treaty Creates Global Government Tax
“We’re looking at a grab for absolute power and absolute financial control worldwide by the UN and its associated bureaucracies and 700 new bureaucratic bodies,” said Monckton.
Speaking about how such draconian measures were being forced through despite the recent scandal surrounding how key IPCC-affiliated scientists conspired to “hide the decline in global warming, Monckton emphasized how the climate change establishment were still ludicrously attempting to downplay the significance of the climategate emails by merely repeating their already discredited propaganda about global warming.
“What has happened is that the mainstream media has done themselves terrible damage by signing up to this climate nonsense and then by servilely refusing to admit that climategate was happening, admit how serious it was and simply inform their readers of what was actually in these emails,” said Monckton, “Admissions that while they’re telling us, as the Met Office did just today, that today is the warmest decade since records began 150 years ago, privately what they’re saying in the climategate emails is ‘hey look we’ve got a temperature which has been falling and we can’t explain why and it’s a travesty that we can’t explain why’ – so they’re saying one thing to us publicly to maintain the scare that’s making them rich, and that’s what’s called fraud, it’s criminal fraud, and on the other hand they’re saying privately ‘oh dear oh dear we can’t account for the fact that there’s been no warming for the last 15 years’”.Monckton said that the Copenhagen treaty meant America was in “immediate peril” of losing its freedom to a “sinister dictatorship” being formed under the contrived pretext of global warming. infowars.com
NEW! NEW! NEW!
Check out the Copenhagen Document Leaks : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W7vrgW8GTQ
AND http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94KH-WMZuw0 - Tells how they will get rid of UN and use IMF to tax you!
Protest the False Climate Measurments being used in the Copenhagen Treaty: http://www.gopetition.com/online/32485.html

Posted by: PaulRevere4 | December 10, 2009 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Now, I ask you this. Are these glowing statements published on the very SAME day I read that 44% of people polled prefer Bush #44 to the Obama-Rahma? My God! You guys must be freakin.

Posted by: fshaffer | December 10, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

What a rag of a post.

The real embarrassment is the non-existence of real journalism when it comes to Global Warm...errrrr Climate Change. This has become a religious argument with Copenhagen being Mecca and Al Gore being the Prophet of Doom.

Don't ya think before we re-order the world's economy and essentially give up the sovereignty of the United States of America we should at least agree on the past temperature record. You'd think there would be a little bit of a pause as it is a fact some scientists colluded to "hide the decline" and deleted data.

WaPo -- your agenda is disgustingly clear.

Posted by: backscatter | December 11, 2009 11:33 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company