Isn’t it arrogance personified when someone, caught in a lie, attacks you for no longer believing them?
We imagine they figure with the continued network blackout they can just run out the clock on the the great ClimateGate hoax. When you have such friendly media coverage spewing the usual climate babble, that air of smug superiority is easy to come by.
A group of the nation’s top scientists defended research on global climate change Friday against what they called a politically motivated smear campaign designed to foster public doubt about irrefutable scientific facts.
Like Chance says, it is all about the propoganda, and making a fat stack of cash of course!
The climate conference in Copenhagen will decide the fate of literally trillions of dollars. These decisions will be based on the recomendations of “scientists”. I was thinking about this and realized, the left is doing it again. The left calls the accumulated “data” that backs global warming/cooling/climate change “science”, and we go along with it. Calling global warming a “science” lends it credibility. Calling those who study it “scientists” bestows them with a degree of expertise. This is part of what makes those who know little about the subject just assume that global warming is fact. “Scientists” have been claiming it is so for years, you can’t argue with science and scientists. Well, as some of us have known for a long time, not all scientists are in the “universal agreement” on this topic that the Gorers would have you believe. Climate gate has exposed a new aspect. Many of the “scientists” are really not scientists at all.
Scientist is defined as : A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences…A person who studies or practices any of the sciences or who uses scientific methods.
That last part is the important part for this discussion. When you use the scientific method, you collect data, then reach a conclusion based on the data.
Propoganda is defined as: The systematic propogation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause
The left would have us continue refering to global warming propoganda as science and its practitioners as scientists. Then they can point to the rednecks who argue with science. On this blog, anyway, they will be referred to as what they are, propogandists. We can’t allow the left to define what is science and who are scientists. I hope some of the other conservative blogs will join me.
UPDATE!! Looks like there is more bad news for the fraudsters
Newspapers and news sites in the Netherlands today extensively broke the news of the findings of a research team led by Professor Jaap Sinninghe Damste — a leading molecular paleontologist at Utrecht University and winner of the prestigious Spinoza Prize — about the melting icecap of the Kilimanjaro, the African mountain that became a symbol of anthropogenic global warming.
Professor Sinninghe Damste’s research, as discussed on the site of the Dutch Organization of Scientific Research (DOSR) — a governmental body — shows that the icecap of Kilimanjaro was not the result of cold air but of large amounts of precipitation which fell at the beginning of the Holocene period, about 11,000 years ago.
The melting and freezing of moisture on top of Kilimanjaro appears to be part of “a natural process of dry and wet periods.” The present melting is not the result of “environmental damage caused by man.”
You know, it is hard out there for fakers and frauds.