The Shocking Lesson from the Climate Scandal

President Obama's complete lack of concern for the fraudulent science associated with global warming is contrasted by the common sense of Sarah Palin. The gutsy Alaskan suggested that Obama ought to hold his horses on the whole climate change thing until the real verdict is in. Of course, the smartest man in the world will have none of that.

With the outrageous news of deceit, fraud, and suppression of opposing evidence by top climate change "scientists," many conservatives had expected to see the story unfold a little differently (with actual reporting and investigating). Global warming, aka climate change, has been heralded as the preeminent story of our time. As such, the exposing of scientific fraud in the ultimate "science" movement would have made screaming headline news in a sane world.

Unfortunately, however, we've seen a virtual blackballing of the story that otherwise would have had a chilling effect on man-caused climate change (MCCC) theory. At best for the hoax-deniers, MCCC has been brought into serious question (which would imply the suspension of policy and taxpayer funds). At worst, MCCC has been exposed as the fraud that it always has been. Amazingly, and almost inexplicably, since the East Anglia CRU e-mails story broke, we've witnessed a barrage of stories promoting global warming as if nothing unusual had occurred.

Here are some recent headlines during the time that scientific fraud should have been the real story: "Climate experts warn: Time to change, or else -- Shift in development and farming advised"; "Global warming may require higher dams, stilts"; "India gives in to US pressure on climate change"; "Dalai Lama says climate change needs global action"; "Toronto is acting on climate change"; "US proposes climate fund for poor nations"; "UN official calls for funds for climate change"; "Climate pledge made by key countries."

Anticipating a "meaningful" agreement on climate change policy, President Obama recently changed his Copenhagen schedule in order to fully participate with other world leaders. Bloomberg quotes White House press secretary Robert Gibbs stating:

'There is progress toward a meaningful Copenhagen accord,' with an 'emerging consensus' that wealthy nations should provide $10 billion a year by 2012 to help developing nations deal with climate change.

Oh, by the way, the Obama-bankrupt United States is numbered among the "wealthy" nations that will be spreading the taxpayer wealth around the world. With billions en route to their coffers, the dictators of poor countries everywhere have suddenly seen the global warming light. Additionally, at the Copenhagen climate summit, Obama will unconstitutionally pledge to cut U.S. emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020.

In order to understand how the scientific scandal of the century could be ignored and swept under the rug by the ruling elitists in media and government, one must first understand the fundamentals of liberalism.

Liberalism, progressivism, post-modernism, or whatever you want to call the pathology originated out of and is built upon fantasy far removed from reality. The counterculture revolution which produced the current phenomenon known as liberalism was based entirely upon make-believe. Specifically, the youth of the 1960s fancied themselves somehow smarter, wiser, and morally superior to their elders and all the tradition that preceded them.

A baffling audacity of baseless arrogance is the progenitor and foundational principle by which contemporary liberalism is undergirded to this day.

If you've ever wondered why liberals are "elitists," that's why. Incidentally, conservatives need to stop referring to liberals as "elites." There is a world of difference between elites and elitists. True elites are the best at what they do. Often, liberals are not the best; they just think they are. They really think they're smarter than everyone else. In fact, they are so smart that once a groupthink consensus is reached among liberals, there is no changing the narrative. Come hell or high water, global cooling, or facts that refute the narrative, they're not budging.

No matter how ridiculous, fanciful, foolish, damaging, asinine, or untenable the idea, once a consensus is reached among liberals, they will not back down. There is a lot of pride associated with being the smartest people on the face of the earth.

The election of Barack Obama is a prime example. Because Candidate Obama was not vetted by the liberal media, the campaign was able to present Obama as the most transparent and post-partisan candidate in history. Of course, the media were not just negligent in investigating the real Obama, but they actively promoted the narrative. It turns out, of course, that the narrative was a complete fraud.

Regardless of the evidence pouring in that shows Obama as both secretive and off-the-charts divisive, the narrative remains firmly intact.

Whether we're talking about science fiction or some other subject, we must not forget that no matter how absurd the idea, once it becomes the "consensus," liberals will never admit they are wrong.

As soon as the term "global warming" was changed to "climate change" we had proof that something unscrupulous was going on. Without a doubt, whether the earth's temperature is rising or falling, the narrative will remain the same: Man is causing the climate change, therefore government must tax and regulate emissions in order to save the planet.

Rick Moran sums it up well: It's not the science; "It's the ideology, stupid."

For those who dare to challenge the settled narratives of their make-believe world, liberals will quickly turn to name-calling and labeling. Those who question the Obama narrative are called "racists." And for those who question the man-caused warming narrative, the hoax-deniers utilize the "climate deniers" label.

The underlying assumption is that liberals are so smart that disagreement can be attributed only to irrational thought. After all, the "science" is settled and the argument is over.

Inconvenient facts will not change the narrative.
President Obama's complete lack of concern for the fraudulent science associated with global warming is contrasted by the common sense of Sarah Palin. The gutsy Alaskan suggested that Obama ought to hold his horses on the whole climate change thing until the real verdict is in. Of course, the smartest man in the world will have none of that.

With the outrageous news of deceit, fraud, and suppression of opposing evidence by top climate change "scientists," many conservatives had expected to see the story unfold a little differently (with actual reporting and investigating). Global warming, aka climate change, has been heralded as the preeminent story of our time. As such, the exposing of scientific fraud in the ultimate "science" movement would have made screaming headline news in a sane world.

Unfortunately, however, we've seen a virtual blackballing of the story that otherwise would have had a chilling effect on man-caused climate change (MCCC) theory. At best for the hoax-deniers, MCCC has been brought into serious question (which would imply the suspension of policy and taxpayer funds). At worst, MCCC has been exposed as the fraud that it always has been. Amazingly, and almost inexplicably, since the East Anglia CRU e-mails story broke, we've witnessed a barrage of stories promoting global warming as if nothing unusual had occurred.

Here are some recent headlines during the time that scientific fraud should have been the real story: "Climate experts warn: Time to change, or else -- Shift in development and farming advised"; "Global warming may require higher dams, stilts"; "India gives in to US pressure on climate change"; "Dalai Lama says climate change needs global action"; "Toronto is acting on climate change"; "US proposes climate fund for poor nations"; "UN official calls for funds for climate change"; "Climate pledge made by key countries."

Anticipating a "meaningful" agreement on climate change policy, President Obama recently changed his Copenhagen schedule in order to fully participate with other world leaders. Bloomberg quotes White House press secretary Robert Gibbs stating:

'There is progress toward a meaningful Copenhagen accord,' with an 'emerging consensus' that wealthy nations should provide $10 billion a year by 2012 to help developing nations deal with climate change.

Oh, by the way, the Obama-bankrupt United States is numbered among the "wealthy" nations that will be spreading the taxpayer wealth around the world. With billions en route to their coffers, the dictators of poor countries everywhere have suddenly seen the global warming light. Additionally, at the Copenhagen climate summit, Obama will unconstitutionally pledge to cut U.S. emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020.

In order to understand how the scientific scandal of the century could be ignored and swept under the rug by the ruling elitists in media and government, one must first understand the fundamentals of liberalism.

Liberalism, progressivism, post-modernism, or whatever you want to call the pathology originated out of and is built upon fantasy far removed from reality. The counterculture revolution which produced the current phenomenon known as liberalism was based entirely upon make-believe. Specifically, the youth of the 1960s fancied themselves somehow smarter, wiser, and morally superior to their elders and all the tradition that preceded them.

A baffling audacity of baseless arrogance is the progenitor and foundational principle by which contemporary liberalism is undergirded to this day.

If you've ever wondered why liberals are "elitists," that's why. Incidentally, conservatives need to stop referring to liberals as "elites." There is a world of difference between elites and elitists. True elites are the best at what they do. Often, liberals are not the best; they just think they are. They really think they're smarter than everyone else. In fact, they are so smart that once a groupthink consensus is reached among liberals, there is no changing the narrative. Come hell or high water, global cooling, or facts that refute the narrative, they're not budging.

No matter how ridiculous, fanciful, foolish, damaging, asinine, or untenable the idea, once a consensus is reached among liberals, they will not back down. There is a lot of pride associated with being the smartest people on the face of the earth.

The election of Barack Obama is a prime example. Because Candidate Obama was not vetted by the liberal media, the campaign was able to present Obama as the most transparent and post-partisan candidate in history. Of course, the media were not just negligent in investigating the real Obama, but they actively promoted the narrative. It turns out, of course, that the narrative was a complete fraud.

Regardless of the evidence pouring in that shows Obama as both secretive and off-the-charts divisive, the narrative remains firmly intact.

Whether we're talking about science fiction or some other subject, we must not forget that no matter how absurd the idea, once it becomes the "consensus," liberals will never admit they are wrong.

As soon as the term "global warming" was changed to "climate change" we had proof that something unscrupulous was going on. Without a doubt, whether the earth's temperature is rising or falling, the narrative will remain the same: Man is causing the climate change, therefore government must tax and regulate emissions in order to save the planet.

Rick Moran sums it up well: It's not the science; "It's the ideology, stupid."

For those who dare to challenge the settled narratives of their make-believe world, liberals will quickly turn to name-calling and labeling. Those who question the Obama narrative are called "racists." And for those who question the man-caused warming narrative, the hoax-deniers utilize the "climate deniers" label.

The underlying assumption is that liberals are so smart that disagreement can be attributed only to irrational thought. After all, the "science" is settled and the argument is over.

Inconvenient facts will not change the narrative.