All told, (U.K. scientist and Green Party activist William) Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy. With the release of the Climategate Emails, the disappearing trick has been exposed. The glorious Medieval Warm Period will remain in the history books, perhaps with an asterisk to describe how a band of zealots once tried to make it disappear.

How many high school and college assignments were written based on what the students read (and copied) from Wikipedia? How many otherwise intelligent people have had their opinions swayed based on what they discovered at Wikipedia?

Sure, Connolley is no longer a Wikipedia administrator. He was de-sysoped for an unrelated topic, cold fusion, not for anything to do with the global warming issue. Yet for the last dozen years it was HIS opinions that were “translated” into fact at Wikipedia.

What type of person erases facts in order to allow his disillusioned beliefs to become the “new facts”? Sounds like some of the Holocaust deniers.

What type of encyclopedia can Wikipedia claim to be? How many more of these situations have we simply not discovered yet? Is there anyone out there that still believes in Wikipedia?

Connolley, Wikipedia, global warming, Medieval Warm Period, Climategate

Spread The Word:

Using a highly reliable measuring system know as the five senses, human beings in their billions have come to the conclusion, that the only certainty about the weather on planet earth, is that it keeps on changing in very strange ways. Some times hot, sometimes cold, sometimes wet, sometimes dry. This mind blowing discovery that affects all our lives has been dubbed Global Norming. Otherwise know as Climate Strange. What effects this will have on future generations nobody knows, but one thing everyone agrees on is that the effects of Global Norming will be devastating.

Global Norming

Spread The Word:

Officials gather in Copenhagen this week for an international climate summit, but business leaders are focusing even more on Washington, where the Obama administration is expected as early as Monday to formally declare carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant.

An “endangerment” finding by the Environmental Protection Agency could pave the way for the government to require businesses that emit carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases to make costly changes in machinery to reduce emissions — even if Congress doesn’t pass pending climate change legislation. EPA action to regulate emissions could affect the U.S. economy more directly, and more quickly, than any global deal inked in the Danish capital, where no binding agreement is expected.

Many business groups are opposed to EPA efforts to curb a gas as ubiquitous as carbon dioxide.

An EPA endangerment finding “could result in a top-down command-and-control regime that will choke off growth by adding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project,” U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue said in a statement. “The devil will be in the details, and we look forward to working with the government to ensure we don’t stifle our economic recovery,” he said, noting that the group supports federal legislation.

EPA action won’t do much to combat climate change, and “is certain to come at a huge cost to the economy,” said the National Association of Manufacturers, a trade group that stands as a proxy for U.S. industry.

Forbidding CO2 emissions will do nothing to effect climate change.

Even if it did, climate change is based on far more than factories spewing CO2 … based far more on cyclical solar activity, for example.

No, regulating CO2 emissions is simply a way for Big Government to control the private business sector. Socialism.

And listing carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant? Wouldn’t that make God a complete idiot, since all human and animal life forms on the planet spew CO2 with every breath they take? Would that make all humans biological weapons? While talking with someone else would you be a criminal guilty of assault for breathing (and expelling CO2) into their face?

Obama, carbon dioxide, Environmental Protection Agency, greenhouse gas, climate change

Spread The Word:

ABC didn’t cover it. CBS didn’t either. And NBC apparently wouldn’t go near it.

The network news broadcasts have ignored a growing scandal over evidence of a potential climate cover-up — and now they’ve even been scooped by the fake news at Comedy Central.

“The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” produced its “reporting” on Climate-gate Tuesday night, when Stewart quipped, “Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!”

Stewart described leaked e-mails from Britain’s University of East Anglia, including one referring to a researcher’s “trick” to “hide the decline” in some temperature readings in recent decades.

“It’s just scientist-speak for using a standard statistical technique — recalibrating data – in order to trick you,” Stewart said sarcastically.

Nearly two weeks since news broke of the e-mail scandal, climate change skeptics have gloated; a leading climate scientist has resigned; at least one U.S. lawmaker has called for an investigation, and countless prominent news outlets have deemed the story worthy of major reporting.

Still, according to a report Wednesday morning by the conservative Media Research Center, “none of the broadcast network weekday morning and evening news shows addressed Climate-Gate or the incriminating Jones development. … This marked 12 days since the information was first uncovered that they have ignored this global scandal.”

The US media outlets, constantly possessing a left-leaning agenda on both What and How they broadcast their version of the news, have said nothing about ClimateGate, a slap in the face to Liberals who have told us over and over that man-made global warming is going to destroy the planet.

The Business & Media Institute had just as much trouble finding the networks’ Climate-gate coverage.

“An examination of morning and evening news programs on ABC, CBS and NBC since Nov. 20 yielded zero mentions of the scandal, even in the Nov. 25 reports about Obama going to Copenhagen to discuss the need for emissions reductions,” the Institute reported Wednesday.

But during that time, the Institute says, “the networks reported on pro-golfer Tiger Woods’ ‘minor’ car accident at least 37 times. They also found time to report on an orphaned Moose and the meal selection at the president’s State Dinner.”

Media Research Center President Brent Bozell reacted to the findings saying, “To pretend this story simply doesn’t exist is damning to journalism.”

True, but Mr. Bozell is grossly incorrect in assuming that the major network news outlets in the US are even attempting anything resembling journalism, that the major network news outlets in the US have ever attempted to hire genuine journalists. What the major network news outlets are doing has absolutely nothing to do with providing news to the citizens of the US, but rather to indoctrinate the masses into their narrow political belief system.

And these are the same media outlets that are considering pressuring Congress to give them taxpayer money to financially bail them out of trouble?

network news, Al Gore, Global warming, East Anglia, climate change, ClimateGate, ABC, CBS, NBC, emissions reduction, journalism

Spread The Word:

From the UK Daily Express:

The scientific consensus that mankind has caused climate change was rocked yesterday as a leading academic called it a “load of hot air underpinned by fraud”.

Professor Ian Plimer condemned the climate change lobby as “climate comrades” keeping the “gravy train” going.

In a controversial talk just days before the start of a climate summit attended by world leaders in Copenhagen, Prof Plimer said Governments were treating the public like “fools” and using climate change to increase taxes.

He said carbon dioxide has had no impact on temperature and that recent warming was part of the natural cycle of climate stretching over ­billions of years.

Prof Plimer – author of Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, The Missing Science – told a London audience: “Climates always change. They always have and they always will. They are driven by a number of factors that are random and cyclical.”

The whole Climate Change circus was driven by one-world-government seekers hoping to find a vehicle by which to command other nations … and their citizens. Genuine science was never involved.

From The Washington Post:

A scientist who is one of the central figures in the controversy over hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia‘s Climate Research Unit announced Tuesday that he is stepping down while the university investigates the incident.

Climate skeptics have seized on several e-mails from Phil Jones, director of the university’s Climatic Research Unit, to other researchers as evidence that prominent scientists have sought to silence their voice in the debate over global warming. The e-mails were pirated and posted online last month.

Marc Morano, who edits the climate skeptic blog, ClimateDepot.com, welcomed the news with an e-mail stating, “One Down: ClimateGate Scientist Phil Jones to temporarily step down… ‘pending investigation into allegations that he overstated case for man-made climate change.’”

Overstated? What about “purposefully lied?”

Says the U.S.News & World Report:

The Penn State administration plans to investigate Climategate and determine if it needs to take further action, the Daily Collegian reports. A little more than a week ago, E-mails exchanged among an English university’s climate change researchers were illegally obtained from a server and posted online, the report says.

Climate change opponents say the E-mails indicate that climate change researchers—including Penn State Prof. Michael Mann—exaggerated or fabricated global warming data. And, according to the report, some E-mails indicate that the director of the research unit in question may have contacted researchers and asked them to “delete certain E-mails.”

Faked the data. Conspired to keep the data fake. Nice job, scientists.

Says the UK Telegraph:

Australia’s Senate rejects Emissions Trading Scheme for a second time. Kevin Rudd’s Emissions Trading Scheme – what Andrew Bolt calls “a $114 billion green tax on everything” – would have wreaked havoc on the coal-dependent Australian economy.

… and …

Danes caught fiddling their carbon credits. Authorities in several countries investigate VAT tax fraud stemming from the Danish CO2 quota register. Denmark is the centre of a comprehensive tax scam involving CO2 quotas, in which the cheats exploit a so-called ‘VAT carrousel’, reports Ekstra Bladet newspaper. Police and authorities in several European countries are investigating scams worth billions of kroner, which all originate in the Danish quota register. The CO2 quotas are traded in other EU countries.

… and …

BBC finally gets round to reporting – sort of – that Climatic Research Unit at University of East Anglia may have been up to no good.

From the Cybercast News Service:

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, is calling on Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) to conduct hearings on a possible conspiracy between some of the world’s most prominent climatologists to, among other things, manipulate data on so-called global warming. Inhofe said the recent disclosure of emails between several prominent climatologists reveal “possible deceitful manipulation of important data and research used by the US Global Change Research Program” and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

Deceitful manipulation by both a US government agency and a UN agency? Nah, say it ain’t so.

climate change, Global Warming, East Anglia, Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, ClimateGate, Michael Mann, Emissions Trading Scheme, climatologist, Global Change Research Program, Panel on Climate Change

Spread The Word:

People will need to turn vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change, according to a leading authority on global warming.

In an interview with The Times, Lord Stern of Brentford said: “Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.”

Yo, Lord Stern, you really want to come over here and attempt to take away my steak? Gook luck with that.

vegetarian, climate change, global warming, Lord Stern, greenhouse gas

Spread The Word:

Fewer British babies would mean a fairer planet.
…
It’s not the growing number of people in poverty who are causing climate change, it’s the rich.
…
The worst thing that you or I can do for the planet is to have children.
…
By today’s standards, a cull of Australians or Americans would be at least 60 times as productive as one of Bangladeshis.
…
As people get richer, they buy cars, use air conditioning, consume more calories and start to swap their vegetables for meat. So the richer a country gets, the more pressing the need for it to curb its population.
…
Could children perhaps become part of an adult’s personal carbon allowance? Could you offer rewards: have one child only and you may fly to Florida once a year?
…
One less British child would permit some 30 women in sub-Saharan Africa to have a baby and still leave the planet a cleaner place.
…
If the cuts are not achieved, we will end up with a planet with a “carrying capacity” of just 1bn humans. If so, we need to start cutting back population now with methods that offer a humane choice – before it happens the hard way.

Yo, Mr. Renton, you just try to come to my hometown and attempt any “population culling” on my property. You would pray that my dogs get to you before I do.

Alex Renton, climate change

Spread The Word:

• Greenhouse gases comprise only 2% of Earth’s atmosphere, or 0.02. Nitrogen, oxygen, and argon make up 99.96% of the atmosphere.
• CO2 gases comprise only 3.62% of all greenhouse gases, or 0.0724% of the atmosphere (although Microsoft Encarta and Wikipedia says it’s only 0.03-0.04%).
• Humans only create 3.4% of all CO2 present in greenhouse gases, or 0.0024616% of the atmosphere.

So the government is suggesting their Cap And Trade, a tax on energy consumption, nonsense is supposed to save 0.000024616 of the planet’s atmosphere, and thus save life as we know it on the planet? Is Mother Nature really that much of a wimp? Was God actually that feeble when He made the Earth?

Says Heritage:

All this economic pain is for very little, if any, environmental gain. Analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency concludes that if the U.S. reduces CO2 emissions 60 percent by 2050, it will reduce global temperature by 0.1 to 0.2 degree Centigrade by 2095. A multi–lateral approach wouldn’t fare much better. Why? Well, there’s a lot of reasons. After all, the science behind global warming is anything but conclusive, but one reason could be how small man’s contribution to carbon dioxide emissions is.

Can you even get your mind around a number as small as “0.000024616″? To assist I’ve included a simple graphic below, but please click to enlarge it so as to really see what the government is working so hard, and will tax you so heavily, for.

Greenhouse gas, CO2, Cap And Trade, CO2 emission, global temperature, carbon dioxide emission

Spread The Word:

A top Republican senator has ordered an investigation into the Environmental Protection Agency‘s alleged suppression of a report that questioned the science behind global warming.

The 98-page report, co-authored by EPA analyst Alan Carlin, pushed back on the prospect of regulating gases like carbon dioxide as a way to reduce global warming. Carlin’s report argued that the information the EPA was using was out of date, and that even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased, global temperatures have declined.

“He came out with the truth. They don’t want the truth at the EPA,” Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., a global warming skeptic, told FOX News, saying he’s ordered an investigation. “We’re going to expose it.”

The controversy comes after the House of Representatives passed a landmark bill to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, one that Inhofe said will be “dead on arrival” in the Senate despite President Obama’s energy adviser voicing confidence in the measure.

Environmental Protection Agency, global warming, EPA, Alan Carlin, James Inhofe, greenhouse gas

Spread The Word:

The complex bill mandates a 17-percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and a 83-percent cut by 2050, reductions that will be accomplished by putting a price on carbon dioxide through a cap-and-trade system. It mandates that 20 percent of electricity comes from renewable sources and increased energy efficiency by 2020.

Many fear the legislation could raise energy costs and hurt the US coal industry. It will certainly be interesting to watch your electricity, heating oil, and gasoline bills closely over the next two years. While some electric utilities, auto manufacturers, and Fortune 500 companies supported the bill, large business associations like the Chamber of Commerce argued that it would impose a crippling regulatory burden on the economy that would push factories and jobs abroad.

Democrats touted the legislation as a measure that would improve national security, create jobs, protect the environment and reestablish the United States as a world leader. Republicans slammed the bill as an economic catastrophe.

My question comes from the fact that the bill is more than 1,200 pages long. Can anyone in the House show me where they read and studied 50% of this legislation? 25%? 5%?

Nope, this was far more politics and very little exercising the will of the voters.

Democrat, Obama, climate and energy legislation, Pelosi, greenhouse gas, cap-and-trade, energy cost

Spread The Word: