Stuck On Stupid ... Again

James D. Baker
Last Wednesday, shortly after Climategate broke exposing corruption of the scientific method supporting anthropogenic global warming (AGW), Carol Browner, our unelected, un-nominated, unconfirmed climate “czar,” assured us that she is "sticking with the [UN IPCC] 2500 scientists" because "these people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem [AGW] is real.”

Apparently, lacking the intellect to think for herself, this “czar” submits to a consensus supported by corruption. Bernie Madoff must be envious.

Yesterday, White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, responded to questions regarding Climategate.

"Climate change is happening.”

"I don't think that's anything that is, quite frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore.”

"I think there's no real scientific basis for the dispute of this.”

Apparently, no matter how much we go over this ground, this White House will never change. It appears there is no hope for them.

The time span of a study is irrelevant to credibility when the study is corrupted, no matter what the study is about, and no matter how many people fall for the corruption. And, of course climate change is happening. Multiple ice ages in our pre-industrial past tell us that.

The dispute is over a) the role of human activity in climate change, and b) the significance any alleged recent heating. Did we really heat up all that much in the 20th century? Are we now cooling? Which is more dangerous, heating or cooling? If CO2 is good for plants, can it be so bad if there is a little more in the air? A third dispute brews regarding whether or not CO2 in the atmosphere is really capable of causing a greenhouse effect. The long-established pure science of physics disagrees with the less established catch-all field of climate science.

Climategate highlights corruption in the "science" underlying the AGW hypothesis, not climate change. The White House response is that of clinging to their lexi-Con Game, substituting "climate change" for AGW.

And what does Sarah Palin have to say about Climategate? Well, today, even though she has no science background, recognizes the problem of

the disturbing details of the “Climategate” scandal, …

Meanwhile, it appears a new consensus is forming. Google search results for “climategate” are now at 13.4 million hits, up from 10 million two days ago, up from zero a week ago.

And so, Mr. Gibbs, Climategate is happening.

I wonder how many of those 2500 scientists Browner hides behind are still on board.

Last Wednesday, shortly after Climategate broke exposing corruption of the scientific method supporting anthropogenic global warming (AGW), Carol Browner, our unelected, un-nominated, unconfirmed climate “czar,” assured us that she is "sticking with the [UN IPCC] 2500 scientists" because "these people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem [AGW] is real.”

Apparently, lacking the intellect to think for herself, this “czar” submits to a consensus supported by corruption. Bernie Madoff must be envious.

Yesterday, White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, responded to questions regarding Climategate.

"Climate change is happening.”

"I don't think that's anything that is, quite frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore.”

"I think there's no real scientific basis for the dispute of this.”

Apparently, no matter how much we go over this ground, this White House will never change. It appears there is no hope for them.

The time span of a study is irrelevant to credibility when the study is corrupted, no matter what the study is about, and no matter how many people fall for the corruption. And, of course climate change is happening. Multiple ice ages in our pre-industrial past tell us that.

The dispute is over a) the role of human activity in climate change, and b) the significance any alleged recent heating. Did we really heat up all that much in the 20th century? Are we now cooling? Which is more dangerous, heating or cooling? If CO2 is good for plants, can it be so bad if there is a little more in the air? A third dispute brews regarding whether or not CO2 in the atmosphere is really capable of causing a greenhouse effect. The long-established pure science of physics disagrees with the less established catch-all field of climate science.

Climategate highlights corruption in the "science" underlying the AGW hypothesis, not climate change. The White House response is that of clinging to their lexi-Con Game, substituting "climate change" for AGW.

And what does Sarah Palin have to say about Climategate? Well, today, even though she has no science background, recognizes the problem of

the disturbing details of the “Climategate” scandal, …

Meanwhile, it appears a new consensus is forming. Google search results for “climategate” are now at 13.4 million hits, up from 10 million two days ago, up from zero a week ago.

And so, Mr. Gibbs, Climategate is happening.

I wonder how many of those 2500 scientists Browner hides behind are still on board.