American Thinker: It's the Climate Warming Models, Stupid!

Thus, because of (1) complicit distortion and overstatement of climate related data-values, (2) repetitive denial of published corrections of exaggerated IPCC data-modeling, (3) deliberate direct and indirect fabrications of data input through falsified methods of interpolation and extrapolation, (4) willfully and overtly creating data forgeries and conclusions, and (5) other man-made errors introduced into climate warming models, from (6) faulty data collection methods from U.S. National Weather Service pedigree measuring stations to (7) the basic corruption of data analysis itself, all climate modeling to date has been woefully inaccurate, the manipulation of which has become the basis of a deliberate IPPC self-fulfilling prophecy concerning AGW.
---
Dr. Gregory Young is a neuroscientist and physicist, a doctoral graduate of the University of Oxford, Oxford, England, whilst previously completing postgraduate work at King's College, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, and having taught graduate-level Statistical Analysis and Mathematical Modeling. He currently chairs a privately funded think-tank engaged in experimental biophysics.

Cap-n-Tax will eat the heart out of Australia | Climate Realists

The Carbon Sense Coalition today claimed that the Emissions Trading Scheme would eat the heart out of regional Australia by destroying jobs in mining, processing, construction, farming, forestry, transport and tourism.

In a submission to the Australian Senate Economics Committee, the Chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, said that the mis-named “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” had nothing to do with carbon or pollution - “it is essentially a cap and a tax on carbon dioxide, the harmless, colourless natural gas that sustains all life on earth”.

Flickr: Discussing Global Warming is a MASSIVE hoax people!

[David Bean] i can care for earth and not buy into a scam that will cost us taxpayers a crapload of our own money to fight a problem that does not exist.

Wind Watch: Why won't WSJ cover story of wind energy's victims?

I’m a writer and a cartoonist and I’ve been working in print media all of my life. I’ve never had this experience with a paper before. Your absolute unwillingness to investigate the problems associated with putting turbines too close to homes and too close to sensitive wildlife areas is unlike any journalistic practice I know of. What on earth is behind it?

I’ve done work for NPR, the New York Times, The LA Times, Newsweek, Esquire, Salon.com and many other national and local publications. I tell you this in the hopes that you may pause and at least momentarily regard me as a colleague, before you write me off as yet another NIMBY.

As a colleague, I’m telling you there is a BIG Wisconsin story here. There are big problems. People are in misery. Why won’t WSJ cover this story?

Lynda Barry