A place for me to pour out my rants without clogging the inboxes of my friends and family. Also a place to give info on myself and Mary, our family news and events.
Published on January 6, 2010 By Rightwinger In US Domestic

As I write this, there's about 8 inches of snow on the ground, today's high was 25 degrees, and a big snowstorm is expected this weekend, beginning tomorrow night. I'm just sayin'.

There are five “O’s” in liberalism:

(Willfully) Oblivious,

(Deliberately) Obtuse,

(Hysterical) Overreaction,

(Ignoring the) Obvious, and

(Unreasoning) Outrage.

One of the greatest examples of this is the recent revelation of the hacking of e-mails, between US and British scientists, from the Climate Research Center, at Britain’s University of East Anglia.

The CRU is described as the worldwide hub of climate studies.

Much work done by climatologists, everywhere, begins with research and data produced there.

It was from there, in the mid-1980s, that the first indications, dire warnings and doomsday predictions of Global Warming, came--after their fruitless, 20-year watch for the “new Ice Age”, that is.

Now, thanks to those thousands of e-mails, hacked and released to the internet, we discover that it was all---Surprise!---a lie.

A scam, by scientists and politicians; the truth behind their hidden agendas, now revealed: protecting their status, their funding, and to affect and control global economies, laws and even populations.

The liberal media, obviously, has all but ignored it; those not ignoring it trying to downplay it; explain it away.

See, you must understand; the coming Global Warming Doomsday is dogma; one of the sacred cows of Liberalism.

Therefore, it will not be a lie; they won’t let it. After all, if Global Warming is a lie, what other tenets of the Church of Liberalism might be based in barefaced untruths?

Maybe our resources really aren’t running out? Maybe the rainforests aren’t disappearing? Perhaps blacks and women really don’t have it as bad off as all that? Maybe abortion really isn't a right? Who knows where the Truth could lead?

But, I wonder: where are all the Outraged liberals who screamed and cried, over Halliburton’s involvement in Iraq? Over Blackwater Security’s supposed misdeeds? Over the failure of FEMA, during Katrina?

Where are you, now? They lied to you, people! Where’s the indignation?

Many of you drastically changed your lives and went “green” (or at least, you told everyone so), sacrificing comforts and joys to accommodate the all-important, “planet-saving” information they circulated in their falsehoods.

You were blatantly lied to; manipulated, by the very people you trusted.

The e-mails taken from the CRU reveal a massive fraud, perpetrated on us all, but especially you---the Global Warming faithful---for 25 years.

Laws were enacted; regulations imposed; taxes and fees levied (all of which--any and all legislation, etc.--having anything to do with Global Warming/Climate Change should, in my opinion, now be repealed); jobs and lifestyles affected.

All,  literally for nothing; nothing but a conglomeration of knowingly--purposely--skewed data, statistical manipulation and boldfaced lies, perpetuating the man-made myth of “Man-made” Climate Change.

Are you not feeling angry, used and betrayed?

The scientists at the CRU and elsewhere, Congress, the UN and that great American hero, Al Gore, are all in cahoots; conning you.

Gore’s “documentary” film, “An Inconvenient Truth”, a slick, glossy bundle of half-baked science, misdirection and outright lies, won two Oscars. He also copped a Nobel Prize for his “work” on Climate Change.

But then, as we’ve recently discovered, that award no longer holds quite the significance it once did.

Did it never occur to any of you, to wonder why it is that Gore, the "world's foremost expert on Climate Change" always dodges debates with actual climatologists, who are skeptical of his “truths”?

What, you thought he just didn’t want to give them a forum, or to lend them any credibility?

He’s lying, and he knows it. They’d have wiped the floor with him.

With Rush Limbaugh’s recent health issues, countless “compassionate” liberals expressed fervent hope for his death.

They need to take some of that hateful bile, and turn it on the perpetrators of the Global Warming deception.

Onward Liberalism trudges, however; shoulders hunched, eyes and ears covered, desperately pretending none of this ever happened.

Liberalism’s five “O’s”; following these, we can all be good little liberals.

Where’s the Outrage, now?

 


Comments
on Jan 06, 2010

You know, this smacks of being a typical talking point rant. I don't know why I'm wasting my time, but I guess it has something to do with still hoping that some people will actually get past being parrots.

Among the assumptions and/or flat out innacuracies (Maybe lies, though I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt since you've always seemed reasonable).

 

The scientists at the CRU and elsewhere, Congress, the UN and that great American hero, Al Gore, are all in cahoots; conning you

 

Proof?

 

See, you must understand; the coming Global Warming Doomsday is dogma; one of the sacred cows of Liberalism.

 

Proof?

 

One of the greatest examples of this is the recent revelation of the hacking of e-mails, between US and British scientists, from the Climate Research Center, at Britain’s University of East Anglia.

 

Funny how I've yet to hear anyone speak up about the crime that was committed - someone illegally hacked into their system. I guess the crime is jutified when it supports your agenda - right RW?

 

the coming Global Warming Doomsday is dogma

 

Ironically, the GW deal is, at its basic level, science coupled with common sense. i.e. The un-politicized science states clearly that we're adding to an already bad problem - hence, common sense says we pull our heads out of our asses - and do something about it. D'uh.

 

Now, thanks to those thousands of e-mails, hacked and released to the internet, we discover that it was all---Surprise!---a lie

 

1. Right wing anti-stewarship, brought to you by criminals. - Coincidence? Maybe.

2. Uh, no. All it implies is that the messages span about 14 years, include at the most a few hundred scientists, and that some of them have indeed been unethical.

3. Also implies that some people don't understand science.

Etc. Etc.

 

A scam, by scientists and politicians; the truth behind their hidden agendas, now revealed: protecting their status, their funding, and to affect and control global economies, laws and even populations.

 

Oh, you mean corporations! Right? God forbid we criticize the mighty corporation for their hidden agendas that protect their status, funding, control on economies, population, laws, etc. No, no - that would be unamerican.  \s

 

The scientists at the CRU and elsewhere, Congress, the UN and that great American hero, Al Gore, are all in cahoots; conning you

 

Yup, it's one massive, world-wide conspiracy, bring out the tin foil hats! Have you been watching Jesse Ventura lately? Geesh.

 

Many of you drastically changed your lives and went “green” (or at least, you told everyone so), sacrificing comforts and joys to accommodate the all-important, “planet-saving” information they circulated in their falsehoods

 

God forbid peole not be complacent and lazy - sacrificing something for what they use. OMG, what a fucking travesty! Additionially...ever hear of using wisely what you have? Oh right, stewarship.

 

 

Did it never occur to any of you, to wonder why it is that Gore, the "world's foremost expert on Climate Change" always dodges debates with actual climatologists, who are skeptical of his “truths”?

 

What is the deal with your man crush on Gore? You realize that he's a putz, right? Anyone with half a brain knows he is not the be all, end all in climate change - it's people like you and those other sheeple that cling onto the supposed fact that Gore is the master puppeteer. Dude, thousands upon thousands of scientists have said they agree with Anthropogenic climate change.

Now, why do you listen to the blow hards who - you've admitted - are not journalists, nor are they bound by any ethical standard?

Go look at the experst, not the drama seekers. Please? Geesh.

 

 

With Rush Limbaugh’s recent health issues, countless “compassionate” liberals expressed fervent hope for his death.

 

Yes, of course. We all know your side has been loving of all liberals - threat, name calling and all.

Really, move away from the childish finger pointing (both of ya - liberals AND conservatives - let me say that again - liberals and conservatives), and go grow up - start providing solutions instead of whining about the other side. It smacks of self righteousness.

 

Where’s the Outrage, now?

 

I've shown my outrage - but most right wingers twist it to fit their narrow view of th eworld. (Not saying the same types of liberals are any better)

 

 

The CRU is described as the worldwide hub of climate studies.

 

Wrong, it is one of the leading institution, but by far not the be all end all. Do your research RW, please.

 

[CRU]...is one of the leading institutions concerned with the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change.

 

( Brown, Craig (8 February 2005). "The forecast for Scotland: wet, wet, wet". The Scotsman. http://news.scotsman.com/weather/The-forecast-for-Scotland-wet.2601547.jp. Retrieved 2008-11-01 )

 

~AJ

Edit:

Btw, while there are points in my comments that are serious and of concern to me - the main emphasis on my comments should be on my effort to satire your absurd chicken little routine regarding climategate. (i.e. sarcasm)

 

~AJ

on Jan 06, 2010

Oh, I almost forgot:

 

Do you have any solid proof for your assertations? 'Cause, I know how you want me to prove everything I say - I guess it's only right you're held accountable for that.

But, I'm assuming that you'll find some way to get out of providing (solid) support for your claims, or, you'll resort to right wing pundits, biased news, lies that you think are truth, etc.

Typical political cycle, as always.

 

~AJ

on Jan 06, 2010

AJ, I don't have to say a word about your post. You proved every point I was trying to make. Utterly and completely.

Thanks much.

on Jan 07, 2010

1.  The "hacking" of the emails appears to be more of a whistle blower because of how and where they came from (which server).  So not really stolen, but leaked.

2.  The hacked emails do not disprove AGW (the true name for this is Anthoprogenic Global Warming), it just calls into question the "proof" that has been used by all the climatologists.  What they do show is a systemic attempt by a handful of climatologists to suppress any dissenting views, and to hide any data that did not conform to their conclusions.

3. The shills for the AGW movement - Algore, Pachauri, Obama, etc. are totally clueless on any of the science of the matter (and indeed totally ingnorant of science in general).  But they do have one thing in common - they are profiting greatly by it.

4. You are correct about the ignoring of the emails.  Indeed, Boxer called for an investigation into the "theft" (which is stupid since it was not done TO any american institution, nor done BY any american), yet never demanded the same for the theft of Sarah Palin's emails.  Selective outrage.

 

I could go on, but the one fault I have with the article is you tried to cover too much.  Indeed, I have written 2 articles on the subject so far, and have many more as I have been researching the subject extensively.  And it is indeed complex and lengthy.  You lose your audience (and of course confuse the witless liberals - see above) by trying to tackle the whole subject in one fell swoop.

The reality is that there has been warming, and the reality is that the cause is not known, and the reality is that there has been warmer times in recent human history, and the reality is Phil Jones, et. al. is trying to doctor the data to point to one and only one conclusion.  It could very well  be the right one, but the methods being used are assuring us that we will never know.

on Jan 07, 2010

BTW - for future reference.  While there are many sources of current temperatures (CRU, the Met, NASA), the source for the historical data used by ALL OF THEM is the same.  The doctored data from CRU.  Tell the idiot child to do his own reseach and quit being a moron.

on Jan 09, 2010

It's been snowing, off and on, for nine days straight, where I live. Temperature right now is 22 degree F.

As I write this, the current temps in the following cities are:

Pyongyang, N. Korea: 22F

Seoul, S. Korea: 19F

Beijing, China: 16F

Tokyo, Japan: 45F

San Francisco, CA: 45F

Los Angeles, CA: 59F

Las Vegas, NV: 30F

San Antonio, TX: 25F

New Orleans, LA: 27F

Atlanta, GA: 19F

Tampa, FL: 34F

Orlando, FL: 34F

New York, NY: 23F

London, UK: 34F

Paris, France: 28F

Palermo, Sicily: 54F

Moscow, Russia: 10F

My point is, that it's winter, and it's cold; just like it's supposed to be. Some climatologists are saying this could be the worst winter in 25 years....hmm...that's right about the time the Global Warming doomsaying started.

Many of the cities in Asia are having record snows; cities around the world are having record cold and snow, both. Maybe I'm just blind or stupid, and not getting the whole Global Warming thing, I don't know.

But I do know, Fate is laughing at the GW faithful; Obama returned from the Copenhagen Climate Conference to find DC under 16 inches of snow.

It's of course good to control pollution levels and such (as long as such regulation doesn't become so strict that it affects employment numbers, economies and lifestyles), but reducing carbon output is futile, because that's not the problem; it's just the red herring they're using. Nothing we do will have any real effect on what warming there has been, because we're not doing it.

Solar activity, folks; not us.

on Jan 09, 2010

That's the thing RW. I've been kicking myself in the ass recently because I remember reading something (an article about a study) that mentions that as the climate gets worse (or fluxuates) the weather will get funkier. For the life of me I can't remember where that article was, otherwise i would link to it.

~AJ

on Jan 09, 2010

The "hacking" of the emails appears to be more of a whistle blower because of how and where they came from (which server).  So not really stolen, but leaked.

They hacked into a systemt they were not legally allowed to - don't go and justify crime now.

on Jan 09, 2010

They hacked into a systemt they were not legally allowed to - don't go and justify crime now.

Why I even bother trying to enlighten the stupid I dont know (maybe some Don Quixote in me).  Why dont you read:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18232

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Climate-gate-e-mails-released-by-whistleblower_-not-hacker-8604302-78098572.html

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Climate-gate-e-mails-released-by-whistleblower_-not-hacker-8604302-78098572.html

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11861

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/climategate_an_inconvenient_wh.html

Now for a little education (lost on the stupid).  Notice I said "appears".  WHy?  Because NO ONE KNOWS yet (except the stupid know it alls).  SO read and get an education for ONCE in your life.

BTW:  Try Googling Climategate and Whistleblower.  There are hundreds of links.

on Jan 09, 2010

Now for a little education (lost on the stupid). Notice I said "appears". WHy? Because NO ONE KNOWS yet (except the stupid know it alls). SO read and get an education for ONCE in your life.

 

Tell me Doc...did the "whistleblower" have explicit (legal) access to the system? I doubt any of the scientists would be the whistle blower when it would screw them over. As far as I can tell, they didn't have acess - hence, it would be logical to assume that the person acessed the emails/data in what would amount to an illegal fashion. Hence, a crime.

Btw,  I have a hard time believing in the credibiity of your sources since some are oped (I know, really strict news!) and others show clear bias against climate change, and/or obama (which implies to me, that they're not a fan of agw, which doing a bit of research, confism it), or are outright critics of gw, or the person writing the article is portrayed as someone he's not.

Example:

Dr. Ball, from the CFP, couldn't have gotten his degree from U/Winn. in anything climate related, because 1) He has a PhD in geography. 2) It's from the U/London.

It's like saying a guy with a math degree is suddenly an expert in Astrophysics.

 

 

Sorry doc, I wanted to give you some credit -but you picked some really bad links. I could respect your attempt if it wasn't so biased, and actually included people writing articles who are experts in climate research.

 

 

on Jan 09, 2010

Sorry doc, I wanted to give you some credit -but you picked some really bad links. I could respect your attempt if it wasn't so biased, and actually included people writing articles who are experts in climate research.

So you "know" it was hacked, right?  Excuse me mr, idiot, show me where i said "I know it was not".  SHow me stupid.

Now, for the 3rd time, I said "appears".  That means it could be, but there is yet no confirmation, so it is subjective.  Do  you understand multisylable words?I doubt it.

Now for the second time, let me try again:

BTW: Try Googling Climategate and Whistleblower. There are hundreds of links.

Can you do that?  Here let me help stupid.  GO to the address bar (the part that starts http://) and type in www.google.com.  When the page appears (I know, magic right?), type in Climategate and Whistleblower (you can keep the and if you like).  Then click Google search.  See!  Now you can google!

Or not, people as stupid as you - who accuse others of not backing up their assertions and yet never does himself - probably forgot where the address bar is.

Now do you know why everyone thinks you are an idiot?  Maybe - Because you are.  Idiot.

 

What a waste of my time.  NOw i know not to read anything by the idiot again.

on Jan 09, 2010

Can you do that? Here let me help stupid. GO to the address bar (the part that starts http://) and type in www.google.com. When the page appears (I know, magic right?), type in Climategate and Whistleblower (you can keep the and if you like). Then click Google search. See! Now you can google!

Or not, people as stupid as you - who accuse others of not backing up their assertions and yet never does himself - probably forgot where the address bar is.

Now do you know why everyone thinks you are an idiot? Maybe - Because you are. Idiot.

 

What a waste of my time. NOw i know not to read anything by the idiot again.

 

Doc, you obviously didn't get my point.

My first was that not only are the links you provided not credible, but the whole idea of the person in question being a *whistleblower* versus a hacker/criminal, is subjective. It's a loaded term, hell it's a loaded debate. Neither side is really willing to concede.

Simply put - damn near every and any global warming denier will see this person as a whistleblower since it serves their cause and/or agenda. Granted, likewise, damn near ever and any gw supporter will see the person as something else. 


Additional points:

1. My looking into this issue leads me to believe that this "whistleblower" illegally obtained the files, which is a crime. I'm willing to concede that I'm wrong, but so far nothing has shown me that my conclusions are. This is my conclusion, just as you have yours.


2. Back to the whistleblower term. If someone was to provide information that suggests that, say, Republicans are in bed with Oil companies. Would you concede that the person is a whistleblower, and not a criminal? Essentially, where does your biases lay - with facts and evidence, or anti-liberal (or "liberal topics") beliefs?

 

All I'm asking, since you're making the claim, is at least one piece of evidence - backed up by a critical, unbiased, nonpolitically motivated source. I don't want someone with a clear bias or agenda, just someone who is facts only. You didn't provide that.

You may try and claim the high ground, that you've said that it "appears" it was a whistleblower/hacker, but your reputation and wording implies that you clearly do not see anything wrong with it. You're not even willing to conceded that (whether or there is a whistleblower) perhaps someone did something illegal in getting this information.

That said, I have googled the terms you've suggest and I've gone and read through (so far) 12 pages of google links - and so far i've found little that is concrete that suggest that the person legally acquired the information. Maybe you're right though, and wit the FOIA maybe there is some loophole you could use on that, but I just don't see anything so far.

That said, again, whether or not the person legally posted the information and regardless of the UK FOIA and the allegations of the UEA CRU trying to stymie it (which I agree is a concern), bottomline is that someone somewhere got this alleged hidden information and published it.

One man's criminal is another mans saviour - er - whistleblower; Just dpends on your bias, right doc?

 

~AJ

 

on Jan 10, 2010

AldericJourdain
That's the thing RW. I've been kicking myself in the ass recently because I remember reading something (an article about a study) that mentions that as the climate gets worse (or fluxuates) the weather will get funkier. For the life of me I can't remember where that article was, otherwise i would link to it.

~AJ

I've met other people who hold to this view. What's so funky about snow and cold in winter? How does that verify Climate Change?

 

They hacked into a systemt they were not legally allowed to - don't go and justify crime now.
---AJ

As I said, sometimes the wrong thing has to be done for the right reason. 

How can you think it's right, that they've spent 25 years, openly decieving people? Manipulating opinions, lifestyles, even economies and governments? It's shameful.

If this had been done by people on the Right, you'd be screaming for their heads. You know you would.

This should cast the whole of GW theory, all of the Climate Change hysteria, into serious question; but you people still go right along with it. I just don't get it; or maybe I do. It all comes down to this quote:

One man's criminal is another mans saviour - er - whistleblower; Just dpends on your bias, right doc?

---AJ

Two names, AJ: Daniel Ellsberg; "Ambassador" Joseph Wilson. Look'em up.

on Jan 10, 2010

Two names, AJ: Daniel Ellsberg; "Ambassador" Joseph Wilson. Look'em up.

RW - I give up. Perhaps you can tell the idiot for the 4th or 5th time.  He does not seem to understand the written word.  I doubt he understands any intelligent discourse.

Let him live in his ignorance.  YOu waste your time with children like him,

on Jan 10, 2010

I've met other people who hold to this view. What's so funky about snow and cold in winter? How does that verify Climate Change?

Frankly, unless I can find and re-read that article I mentioned - I can only say that I remember reading about it. Sorry.

As I said, sometimes the wrong thing has to be done for the right reason. 

 

IE - the ends justify the means, right? Eh, I can't quite stomach that. It could lead to justification for darn near anything. I think somewhere you have to hold that line. 

 

If this had been done by people on the Right, you'd be screaming for their heads. You know you would.

Oi, quit ASSuming RW! You're not fond of people thinking they know you, right? Sorry, it's just annoying and makes me think that the person that does it has their heads up their arse.

Just because my beliefs put me on the left side of the spectrum - doesn't mean (I say yet again!) that I am the sum of ALL of the left wing, nor that I am close to the fringe/wackos. If you think that I might, ask me...and I'll reply honestly.

Okay?

 

This should cast the whole of GW theory, all of the Climate Change hysteria, into serious question; but you people still go right along with it. I just don't get it; or maybe I do. It all comes down to this quote:

 

 

How can you think it's right, that they've spent 25 years, openly decieving people? Manipulating opinions, lifestyles, even economies and governments? It's shameful.

 

Yes, it is shameful. Science should be beyond politics and agenda's.

That said,  there are way too many variables and unanswered questions to be able to decisively say that this, climategate, implies that all climate reasearch is a conspiracy (To be franky, such a world wide conspiracy seems too good to be true, and as they say if it seems..then it like isn't true) It just is waaaay to big a leap to say that A leads to Z, when B through Y haven't been gone through yet.

I mean really, can you confirm that, say...51% of the scientists in the world are in league with them? How about the fact that the CRU is one of the places that deals with gw/agw. How about the fact that there are still many, many places that still collect Zata on their own and take a look at that data (on their own).

My issue is the fact that the acquiring of the information appears to have been done illegally - maybe. The point being, this entire climategate fiasco is still to early in its stages to really form a solid opinion (and that's setting aside media/science's/anti-gw,/gw/anti-agw agenda and manipulation). You still have to ask yourself a bunch of questions, like for example:

Do the questionable actions of 'a few' scientists really imply that ALL agw is corrupt?

Do the words used by those scientists truly imply that they're hiding something? (Would a noncienstist understand certain words and phrases?)

How much did the other places rely on the CRU?

How many scientists are involved with climate research?

 

(etc. etc.)

 

Do you see what I mean? I'm not saying you're wrong, but, there are things that have to be resolved/answered. (Call it a detective's approach if you will, i dont know.) Hey, at least you're not like the OISM that tried to pass off 31,000 signatures as proof of general scientific community consensus againsg gw. (Sure: A cardiologist, air force pilot... ) Makes me sad to be an oregonian. oh well, to each their own.

 

***

 

 

Additionally RW - would you be willing to concede that AGW is true? It comes to me to mention that, because it seems like you've already brought out the judge, jury and executioner. IE - It seems like you're using evidence to support your predetermined notion, versus saying something like "it appears". (Not trying to take a high ground, just suggestiing. I apologize if this ticks you off. And yes, I'm not any better when I don't concede.)

(Btw, the reason I've been focusing on the hacking/non-hacking/whistleblower is because that's my main concern right now - not intentionally ignoring agw)