Thursday, February 23, 2012

The Cornered Rats of Climate Change - Marita Noon

What would cause these two well-reputed sources to go to such extremes—expensive advertising and reputation-ruining acts—to defend their manmade climate change positions? The rat is cornered.
 
Anyone who follows the climate change debate knows that the Heartland Institute gives voice to scientists who do not ascribe to the theory of human-caused climate change. Their purpose is well known, and their strategies should not be a surprise. True scientists would welcome the debate—not seek to squash it. Gleick’s actions in tricking the Heartland Institute were aimed at discrediting it. If the science on the warmer’s side were solid, they wouldn’t need to resort to underhanded actions. But as more evidence, that began with the “Climategate” e-mails, comes out that shows that dissenters were silenced and that the predictions are being proven false, the scared promoters are taking extreme actions to protect their turf.
 
While Gleick’s ruse supposedly exposed Heartland’s “skeptic” funding, their budget is a drop in the bucket compared to the massive amounts of money spent in support of the manmade climate change position.

Fun with wealth redistribution | Climate Nonconformist

Only a certain percentage of revenue raised from the carbon tax would be put into compensation, with the rest thrown at renewables, carbon credits and the UN. Therefore, the population would be financially worse off overall.

- Bishop Hill blog - The comedy of fakers

Hilariously, DeSmog appears to have decided to try to uphold the line that the fake Heartland strategy document is real. I'm struggling to keep my jaw off the floor.

An online and open excercise in stylometry/textometry: Crowdsourcing the Gleick “Climate Strategy Memo” authorship | Watts Up With That?

Steven Chu’s Europe gas quote haunts President Obama | JunkScience.com

President Barack Obama’s Energy secretary unwittingly created a durable GOP talking point in September 2008 when he talked to The Wall Street Journal about the benefits of having gasoline prices rise over 15 years to encourage energy efficiency.

No comments: