So quickly, I mean. It was an obvious hoax, at least to me. Environmentalism is the new poverty for Marxists, the new insurmountable crisis that can only be solved by universal slavery under a one-world government. If you didn’t see through that pose, you must have slept through the twentieth century.
(For future reference, whatever the supposed emergency, if the proposed solution is more government, the “crisis” is a hoax and the sole objective is more government. This ain’t rocket science.)
Even so, I am delighted to cite two local angles on the “global warming” hoax:
First: Phoenix was one of the cities used to fudge the records on rising temperatures, although I don’t think our teeny-tiny little local hoax has been exposed yet. What they did was move the temperature collection apparatus at Sky Harbor Airport from a position over grass to a new spot over blacktop. Voila! Several degrees “warmer” every day, just like that.
And: Just because the world hasn’t actually gotten warmer since 1995 doesn’t mean winter is a frozen, lifeless hell everywhere. Today — February 14 — we used the air conditioner at home for the first time this year.
Greg Fleischaker says:
I’m not sure I am as willing as you to label it a hoax, but you might be interested to review the “crisis” of global cooling, all the way back in 70’s.
February 14, 2010 — 8:52 pm
Greg Swann says:
So far the conspiracy is unraveling like an episode of Pinky and the Brain. This is my kind of fun!
February 14, 2010 — 10:03 pm
Don Reedy says:
The Global warming experts indicate they will introduce legislation to outlaw death. They calculate, as part of their global warming datum, that over 250,000 people die each day, and the CO2 from the decay associated with that is adversely affecting our climate.
Soon to be outlawed as well….pets…as they have shorter lifespans.
Soon after that…..car salesmen, lawyers, 80% of all real estate agents….well, you get the point.
February 15, 2010 — 7:22 am
Michael Cook says:
Um, call me crazy, but isnt there a lot more evidence beyond those obviously flawed weather stations? Sea levels, ecosystem changes, ice caps, etc.
I am no scientist, but it would seem a bit disingenious to publish such a catchy headline with very little fact to back it up.
Good luck with the head in the sand approach, though. It worked so well during the industrial revolution when they also didnt think anything of pollutions effect on the environment.
Damn, that big government for creating a healthier environment that enables us to live much longer and fuller lives. I am one for smaller government, but there are just some things that will not regulate themselves no matter how brillant you believe man to be.
February 15, 2010 — 8:11 am
Greg Swann says:
> Um, call me crazy, but isnt there a lot more evidence beyond those obviously flawed weather stations? Sea levels, ecosystem changes, ice caps, etc.
Don’t know. Do you?
Is it plausible to you that people who would lie to you for decades about temperature collection might also be lying about everything else?
The entire “global warming” “debate” consists of the fallacy of many questions, at best:
1. Is the earth warming?
2. If it is, is it caused — or even preventable — by human agency?
(Incidentally, there is another branch of questions that starts here: If global warming is really happening, it that a bad thing? The AGW conspiracy has admitted that it has been lying all along about the warming periods that correspond to the Age of Icelandic Exploration and the Renaissance. Are you willing to argue that these well-documented periods of actual climactic warming were bad for humanity?)
3. If “global warming” can be caused or prevented by human agency, is government the best means of effecting that agency?
4. Governments are good at committing crimes — expropriation, imprisonment, enslavement, torture and murder. Are these the best means for effecting any positive value-pursuit?
5. Even if you make it all the way to question #4, how much expropriation, imprisonment, enslavement, torture and murder would you say is too much? Is it arguable that, even if all of the hysterical lifeboat scenarios environmentalists have cooked up since 1970 were true — even if all of them were true — the universal slavery and pandemic penury that is proposed as the “solution” to “global warming” might be a worse fate?
Every argument for the alleged “benefits” of government ignores the cost of those “benefits” in human liberty. If some expropriation, imprisonment, enslavement, torture and murder is good, why should anyone object to totalitarianism? What critical emergency, would you say, could not be used to justify the universal enslavement of all of humankind? No matter how you answer, you’re behind the curve on that question. The Marxists have already tried every “emergency” they could cook up.
> Damn, that big government for creating a healthier environment that enables us to live much longer and fuller lives.
Patently false. All wealth is created by capitalism. It is very easy to demonstrate that government — crime — systemic expropriation, imprisonment, enslavement, torture and murder — is by far the greatest contemporary peril to human life. At least 160 million innocent people were murdered by governments in the twentieth century. How many millions of innocent human lives, would you say, are worth exterminating to “solve” the “problem” of “global warming”?
Luckily — and it’s absurd to think how many times human life has survived as a consequence of luck — the entire ludicrous case for immediate universal slavery to “solve” the “problem” of “global warming” is faling apart. If we are very lucky, people all over the world are waking up to the endemic Marxist conspiracy in all its forms.
Someday, we’ll get tired of being the hysterical stooges of megalomaniacal cowards. On that day, true human civilization will begin.
February 15, 2010 — 9:25 am
Don Reedy says:
Michael,
You unfortunately remind me of the Lloyd Benson/Dan Quayle debate. You remember. It went something like this: Benson – “I knew John Kennedy. John Kennedy was a friend of mine……..Mr. Quayle, you’re no John Kennedy.”
As this site is used by us for the purpose of shedding light on multiple topics related to real estate and life in general, I won’t fill the page with all the data I could. Just peruse, if you will, a couple of these articles:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html
http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/2009/110117spencer/ndx_spencer.pdf
But I’ll stop with this site, which refutes your idea that disagreement with the “idea du jour” is “disingenuous.”
I’ll give you some facts to back up the concept that global warming is not readily acknowledged by all scientists, that the causes of any purported warming are unclear, and that there continues to be inaccuracy or downright lying on the part of both sides of the discussion.
Just start Googling both sides of the discussion. You’re going to have a long night.
February 15, 2010 — 10:46 am
Greg Swann says:
This article is fun.
I really need to dig out some Pinky and the Brain clips. This is funnier than Man-Bear-Pig. It’s amazing how much faked “evidence” there is behind this “settled science” — and how eager people were to swill down yet another “unanswerable” “argument” for universal, perpetual, global human slavery.
Here’s the question of the era — one we can be sure will not be asked by the epidemically-Marxist social sciences: Why are ordinary people so eager to enslave themselves?
February 15, 2010 — 12:04 pm
Doug Lindstrom says:
I’m not smart enough to say that I am an authority on global warming but I am brilliant at seeing through Bull****. If enough scientist agreed that global warming was in fact real science and had nothing at stake (i.e. financial gain, Nobel prizes, etc) then I might be inclined to take a second look. Similarly, our Gov’t has everything to gain by promoting ‘warming’ and it’s the easiest way to get in our wallets. Repeat something enough and the sheeple will believe it as truth. As Greg mentioned, human slavery is inevitable and eagerly accepted by ‘the believers’. For the skeptics, I believe we simply want the truth, not falsified science (or corruption).
February 15, 2010 — 1:30 pm
Jeff Brown says:
On one of the Sunday news shows I watch, one talking head asked another — “If global warming is such a no-brainer, and the entire scientific community is in agreement, when then have they so blatantly been lying to us?”
The lame answer was preceded by about 10 seconds of crickets. Hilarious.
February 15, 2010 — 1:53 pm
Mike says:
I love driving. I love flying. I love my big-screen plasma TV, dishwasher and clothes-dryer. I realize that big CO2 taxes, and shifting away from cheap fossil-based energy will have a negative effect on the economy.
I don’t want climate change to be real, but I want to know the truth. So what do we know for sure?
1. Humans burn over 30 billion barrels of oil, 3 trillion cubic meters of natural gas, and over 6 billion tons of coal every year.
2. CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels are rising significantly.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi_2009.fig2.png
3. Summer Arctic sea ice had been fairly constant at around 11 million square km from 1900-1950’s. Since then it has steadily dropped to under 7 million square km.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg
You gotta ignore some pretty strong evidence to believe it’s all been a hoax.
February 15, 2010 — 3:50 pm
Greg Swann says:
> You gotta ignore some pretty strong evidence to believe it’s all been a hoax.
Apparently I was unclear. It is by now quite clear that the “evidence” for anthropogenic global warming has been systematically faked over the course of many years. Citing other “evidence” you cannot yourself validate does nothing to advance your case. It was obvious all along that the motivating objective of those promoting the “crisis” was universal tyranny. With each new revelation of faked “evidence,” this becomes harder and harder to deny.
So:
1. There may or may not be warming happening in our climate. We cannot know this, because the people who might settle the matter are implicated in the conspiracy.
2. Warming of the climate may or may not be a problem. The evidence of history — until lately suppressed by the conspirators — is that past warm periods have been very good for human civilization: Longer growing seasons resulted in more food, which in turn made more labor available for other pursuits, including the arts and sciences. The great flowerings of human civilization correspond to past periods of warming.
3. Warming of the climate, if it is occurring, may or may not be caused by human beings. The quantity of CO2 introduced into the atmosphere by human agency is dwarfed by natural processes. Meanwhile, there is an elephant in the room, about 90 million miles straight down from here, that the conspirators insist most strenuously on ignoring.
4. None of this matters to the conspirators, in any case. Their sole objective is to enslave all of humanity, ideally forever. This is why every “crisis” they manufacture with faked evidence has the same one cure.
The one benefit we can hope to reap from this scandal is that individual people will discover that they are consistently being duped by Marxists and their shills.
February 15, 2010 — 4:30 pm
Doug Quance says:
You know where I stand on this hoax… lord knows I’ve stated it often enough.
I’m happy the truth is unraveling the lies before the negative impact of the likely proposed legislation went into effect.
One can only wonder what the next manufactured crisis will be.
February 15, 2010 — 8:41 pm
Robert Worthington says:
I listen to glenn beck as well!!! Great show, that all commies should listen to.
February 15, 2010 — 9:27 pm
Greg Swann says:
> I listen to glenn beck as well!!!
Never listened to the man. I have a client who swears by him. I like the idea of those kinds of topics being discussed in the mass media.
February 15, 2010 — 10:06 pm
jay says:
Since Cook brought up the “head in the sand” description of people who are calling out the fallacies and intentional lies of the man made global warming hoax, we should look at what is truly head in the sand–believing that the government is responsible for cleaning the environment the past 100 years.
Some probably think the Clean Air Act was the game changer in cleaning up air quality in the United States. That is until you look at the data the previous 2 decades and see how quickly the air quality was improving before the Clean Air Act was ever passed.
Why did the air quality improve? Innovations and technology that came about as a result of capitalism and the search for the almighty $$$$. The CAA was a blip on the screen after the air was already being cleaned up.
Trees. We have more trees now than ever thanks to capitalism and millions of seedlings being planted annually by the greedy lumber industry.
None of the technology that has improved our quality of life and had such profound impacts on cleaning our environment was invented by your beloved government that now has $40,000 in IOU from my each of 5 children. This is achieved by those elitists who are helping us by intentionally censoring data and contradictory evidence from the public. Almost all consequential steps forward improving the environment are through the private sector period.
Sea levels, ecosystem changes, ice caps that all participate in naturally cyclical periods with ups and downs. Duh.
Yes the scammers seem hellbent on ignoring the sun in the whole equation of atmospheric issues. Think about how agenda driven that is–to ignore perhaps the most important factor of all in impacting warming and cooling.
Some of the latest pieces I’ve come across on the subject:
http://9mp.com/QQfAD
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/
http://9mp.com/8MvvN
It’s been too long since I wrote and researched a long piece on the improvement of the environment and how it was tied exclusively to technological innovations the past 100 years with government coming along after the fact to try and pass symbolic acts on issues that were already correcting themselves. So I no longer have all the data and info memorized as I did for a few years.
The government needs to keep out of the way and let the markets keep innovating and developing more marketable green products and solutions without pummeling those profitable companies into the ground with taxes or forcing them to take their jobs overseas.
This liberal government seems to take pride in creating more government jobs while the private sector erodes. The government will not create anything to improve our quality of life or environment.
I think they people that were most duped by the whole man made warming hoax–executed by many who tried to do the same man made global freezing hoax in the 1970s–were looking for significance. They needed a faith in which they could still be lord of their own life but believe their life was so important that it could change the atmosphere. At least the more driven enviros went along those lines. Others meant well but never stopped to think critically about the lack of logic behind the issue.
My head is not in the sand because I was not programmed to drink kool-aid in a government school teaching secular humanism and me to follow the masses intellectually like a good boy so I’d be easier to govern by the elitists.
My intellect is out and about always asking hard questions–especially towards those whom are trying to “help” me and my family.
February 16, 2010 — 5:33 am
Michael Cook says:
Wow, you leave for a quick message here and come back the next day to some many wonderful comments.
Its challenging to address all of these claims in one post, particularly because I dont actually care that much about global warming and had I known it was such a hot topic here (pun intended) I would have left a much more cohesive response.
Nevertheless, rather than handle the topic of global warming, I would like to address the governmental response, which I think is the actual issue here for everyone. We have the extreme of Greg’s government enslaving all humanity to the not so extreme Jay, government is inefficient, a day late and always a dollar short.
Let’s assume for a second there is a real problem with global warming, like there was/is a real problem with industrial pollution. I don’t intend to claim the government should find a solution to the problem, but I do think the government should provide a simple playing field and let capitalists do their work. Government always functions best when it takes legitimate research and sets out a clear playing field for people to navigate.
I hope/think we can all agree that companies should not dump carcinogens in water sources. Rather than going to the extreme of banning the product that produces carcinogens, the government simply makes the act of dumping it into the drinking water. Industry then either invents a way to clean the way, a way to solidify it and store it, etc. At the end of the day, capitalism will always adjust and everyone will be better off for it. When the government goes beyond making rules and begins to provide financial incentives for behavior or funding cure type researches, it goes beyond the scope of setting the playing field. While I think it is at times appropriate, that is not the argument here. My simple thought is when a problem has been recognized, and with unfettered capitalism there will be major problems, despite what Greg, the perennial altruist, would have everyone believe, government should come in and set up the rules to the game and then let everyone compete.
February 16, 2010 — 9:08 am
Greg Swann says:
> I do think the government should provide a simple playing field
That’s what almost everyone thinks. They have fond ideas about religion, school-teachers and the NCAA, too. What they get — always — is corruption and despair, at best, but they never stop hoping. My take is that you are describing an ant farm from the point of view of the ants — or “The Claw” in first Toy Story movie. Certainly nothing in human history corresponds to your wishful thinking.
Gotta run. I have a home inspection — which I wouldn’t trust to my own trusted home inspector without my oversight, much less to some minion of the state. I may come back to this later.
February 16, 2010 — 12:17 pm
Michael Cook says:
“You unfortunately remind me of the Lloyd Benson/Dan Quayle debate. You remember. It went something like this: Benson – “I knew John Kennedy. John Kennedy was a friend of mine……..Mr. Quayle, you’re no John Kennedy.””
Don, really? I could eloquently spout extreme nonsense, which at times I would label some of Greg’s post (no offense intended here, but they really dont make sense to me), but I would rather live in this world. A world where humanity is not enslaved and where every individual will maximize their own good when they act rationally (and it should be noted that they will not always act rationally). In this world, maximizing ones own good often comes at a cost to others. There is a reason why society evolve government.
Greg and I have very different economic and governmental views. He does use bigger words than me and is certainly a better writer, but that most certainly does not make him an authority on fact. In fact, its clear that Greg Utopia does not exist and never will (obviously my opinion). An advanced class in behavorial economics or a simple look at history will prove that Greg’s human beings dont exist.
February 16, 2010 — 9:22 am
Don Reedy says:
Michael,
Just a quick response. Notwithstanding differences of opinion, my response to you was to say with respect to your claim that anyone who doesn’t stand in line with the global warming afficienados is “disingenuous”…..you’re wrong.
I was not writing to defend Greg, but to address you directly about those of us who haven’t fallen in line with the GW gestapo.
I think I’ve made my point, and others posting here have made clear, cogent claims about the science related to global warming. That there are techniques being employed by the global warming heads of state that are a)wrong, b)misleading, c)lies, or yes, even d)hoaxes, is apparent from just a cursory reading of the scientific data and discourse.
My Kennedy/Quayle quote to you was meant to say that your scientific expertise seems (at least without your responding otherwise) to be lacking. If I’m wrong, speak some science to me.
February 16, 2010 — 9:36 am
jay says:
Latest stuff gets revealed Part 1. This time from NASA: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-2-0-%E2%80%94-the-nasa-files-u-s-climate-science-as-corrupt-as-cru-pjm-exclusive-%E2%80%94-part-one/2/
February 17, 2010 — 6:08 am