Coke Generation.
The new favorite because witty climate website, Watt's Up With That?, features the most strangely goofy and manipulative of Coca-Cola commercialsl, a drama of snow-sledding polar bears who overheat and need a sip of cool pop. Assume the Coke ad buy anticipated Copenhagen but not the crankiness, vagueness and flop of the POTUS Obama visit and last-moment bluster and overbearing elitism. Watt's Up is the front line just now in the investigation of the climate change warmists and their ten-year or more campaign to collude and suppress challengers to their data. Recently, Watt's Up featured the controversy of a warmist censor named William Connolley who obsessively revises Wiki entries to expunge any mention of doubt or inconsistency in the warmist theory. The center of the battle is to gain access to the raw data that is said to have produced the now famous and controversial "hockey stick" of warming since approximately 1950 and to reexamine the statistical analysis and representations. James Hansen is the leading American advocate of the warmist theory (the so-called "settled science"). Hansen now publishes a defense of his arguments and adds a peculiar "summary," in which he demonstrates puzzling persecution thoughts and even petty self-pity. We can look forward to the results of what Hanses says are 2500 FOIA inquiries for his data and e-mails. The lurid "taken out of context" moments will be like zesty arias to the polar bears swigging Pepsi:
The recent "success" of climate contrarians in using the pirated East Anglia e-mails to cast doubt on the reality of global warming* seems to have energized other deniers. I am now inundated with broad FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests for my correspondence, with substantial impact on my time and on others in my office. I believe these to be fishing expeditions, aimed at finding some statement(s), likely to be taken out of context, which they would attempt to use to discredit climate science.
There are lessons from our experience about care that must be taken with data before it is made publicly available. But there is too much interesting science to be done to allow intimidation tactics to reduce our scientific drive and output. We can take a lesson from my 5- year-old grandson who boldly says "I don't quit, because I have never-give-up fighting spirit!"
We've all seen countless disaster flicks about Martians invading, volcanoes erupting, earthquakes, pandemic, etc. In each instance the dramatic case is built for a people to band together and figure out a way to beat the odds. Usually, as often happens in dystopian fiction, we all live to see another day. The sole exception that I remember seeing is "On the Beach" (’59).
When the looming disaster is not verifiable; when the case for it is made with deliberately manipulated science - when opposing voices are systematically suppressed - a criminal case could be made charging both conspiracy and terrorism. ‘Climate gate’ has exposed the farce. Copenhagen has exposed the underlying reason for it.
This is not to say that there may not be some merit in taking from the rich and giving to the poor - or even in burying the rich neck-deep in the market square and throwing cobble stones at their heads. An honest case could be made either way.
The case for 'global warming', however, has now been exposed as subterfuge. An argument based on outright deception can and will never be forgiven. Those attempting to do so are the same people who lied about Bill Clinton's sordid affairs. Once a lie has been released, its consequence becomes unpredictable. Its almost always deleterious effect can not be contained. It might even take a circuitous route to achieving the downfall of a nation.
http://peterkoelliker.blogspot.com/
War mists are signing their own pink slips. The word Radioactive comes to mind. Their religious fervor towards evidence that DOES NOT EXIST is in direct opposition to the scientific method.
Bankers have regulators, Doctors and Healthcare providers have medical boards and state licensing agencies, Government employees have auditors. Where are the third part outside observers for Academia, the Scientific Media (Scientific American), and research scientists?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Peter, Dr. Strangelove didn't exactly have a happy ending, except for Slim Pickens' joy at riding the bomb down, waving his cowboy hat in the air all the way.
CAN THE UN BE PROSECUTED UNDER RICO?
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act was enacted to counter the ill-affects of organized crime on the nation's economy. RICO seems to have anticipated the UN, ClimateGate and Cap & Trade.
Hansen's quote above seems not-so-much a scientific explanation as it is a legal defense. Perhaps, the only way to get Hansen's data is to pry it from his hot, sweaty, overheated imagination, where no doubt it originated.
Conspiracy theories (and those who believe them) are laughed at by lefties who, of course, are busy doing the conspiring. The laughing, as usual, can be heard all the way to the bank.
http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/climategate/history/2009.12.23_climategate_30_years_in_the_making_banner.pdf
According to the graph (shown) from Hansen's 1981 paper "Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide", the Earth had been:
a) First, warming between 1880-1940 (60 years), before any significant man- made CO2 emissions.
b) And then cooling between 1940-1980 (40 years), despite the greatest man-made emissions of CO2 to date due to the post war economic boom.
So despite a previous a trend of 60 years and being only 40 years into the new cooling trend, it was nevertheless decided at the July 1979 conference, the Earth was now again in a warming trend and CO2 was to blame. How?
And how could Hansen "predict" a new warming trend at this time (actually the late 1970s) when his own data didn't show it? Only years later, as the trend set in, was it learned that at this time (1981) the Earth was 4 years into a new warming period. Perhaps it was coincidence the Earth warmed and Hansen was just lucky?
Or, are we to believe that primitive, 30 year old computers and climate M models let Hansen et al "accurately" predict and attribute this as yet to
occur "warming trend" to CO2 in 1981 while 30 years later, using powerful super-computers, the same or supposedly even more sophisticated models cannot even retroactively account for the 12 years of cooling since 1998, let alone predict the trend in the first place, despite the greatest CO2 emissions to date? Or perhaps it is as Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, former director of the International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska and author of over 500 articles, explained in September 2007: "no supercomputer, no matter how powerful, is able to prove definitively a simplistic hypothesis that says the greenhouse effect is responsible for warming.." [92]
In fact, after 12 years of cooling, one hockey stick researcher, flatly states today it is a "travesty" the current models still cannot account for the cooling (see {TRENBERTH 12.Oct.2009}). If one cannot explain the cooling then it stands to reason one cannot claim to explain the warming either because obviously there are unknown factors changing the climate and overwhelming the known factors,
Nevertheless, despite only a handful of scientists agreed with the 1979 conference conclusions or with Hansen's 1981 position, the media ignores all other points of view and champions Hansen's CO2 induced warming and give him front page billing. Why?
"Nevertheless, despite only a handful of scientists agreed with the 1979 conference conclusions or with Hansen's 1981 position, the media ignores all other points of view and champions Hansen's CO2 induced warming and give him front page billing. Why?"
Rhetorical question John?
CO2 = Carbon = Carbon = Hydrocarbon = Oil/Coal/NG/ect = cheap and abundent energy = Industrial Revolution and economic growth --> high standards of living --> Rise of the middle class --> drive for increased freedom and creativity.
Control Carbon and you control people. You put the shackles of poverty, subsistant living and serfdom back on the people.
Water rights, Carbon Credits, Health Care. Control
Charlie is correct. The presence of the Carbon atom is what makes a molecule organic. Without Carbon, there is no life as we know it (although it's only a matter of time before some bright boy figures out how to create organic molecules using some other reactive element such as Silicon.)
So, the Control of Carbon is a metaphor for Control of Life.
Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller made the remark (and it IS on VIDEO) that control of world population was essential and that they....here's the focal point relevant to your posts...
...they wanted to thank the newspapers...the NEW YORK TIMES and such for their cooperation with respect to this "agenda".
The Council on Foreign Relations....CFR, for short....google it, and while you're at it consider the UNITED NATIONS role in all this including their role in "CODEX ALIMENTARIS".
CONTROL....Repression....hidden agendas.
Perhaps they paid off Mr. Hansen, while assuring him media coverage and world renown.