Coming Soon . . . Global Warming Skepticism Illegal *UPDATE*

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Steve McIntyre tears to shreds an anti-speech ruling by the British equivalent of the FCC, Ofcom. 

Ofcom ruled that a documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle” violated rules, essentially, because the producers presented evidence contrary to the party line of the United Nations and the Labor government. In other words, in the UK, thou shalt not question global warming.

For all the details (way too involved for this blog) see McIntyre’s Climate Audit beginning here.

What’s happening in the UK is on its way to the United States.  Powerful people like George Soros, Al Gore, and David Hansen have billions of dollars and huge reputations riding on man-made global warming.  The facts do not support their view, and the people are getting tired of hearing about it.  To perpetuate this fraud, they will limit freedom of speech on the matter.  Gaining popularity is David Roberts’s position that skeptics should be tried at a war crimes tribunal.  Moreover, politicians in Europe and elsewhere are seeking to ban skeptics from access to any form of mass communication:

The task of the skeptic is made even more difficult by the burgeoning effort to silence dissent. There have been calls recently to equate global-warming skeptics with Holocaust deniers and to have them punished as the equivalent of war criminals. On September 19, 2006, in a post on the blog run by environmentalist magazine Grist, David Roberts wrote: “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these b*****ds — some sort of climate Nuremberg.”1 

This type of rhetoric has not been confined to just one anti-heresy crusader. Columnist Vin Suprynowicz, editorial page editor for the Las Vegas Review-Journal, pointed out in a recent column that “the British foreign secretary ‘has said that skeptics should be treated like advocates of Islamic terror and denied access to the media'” and that “European Union Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas [told] the BBC that people should view the battle against climate change as a war — accepting the privations of a wartime economy and expecting millions of casualties.”2

Under other circumstances, I might be inclined to sit out this election and let Obama screw up the country Jimmy Carter style.  He has all the right stuff to do just that.  But I can’t.  Freedom itself, the First Amendment, is on trial.   In a recent speech, Al Gore left little doubt as to his view on those of us who disagree with him:

Those who, for whatever reason, refuse to do their part must either be
persuaded to join the effort or asked to step aside. This is such a
moment. [h/t windfarms]

Against free speech, free thought, and scientific investigation stand powers and principalities.  Clearly, people are serious about incarcerating me and others like me for penning such words as these. The most dangerous weapon against fraud being the cold, remorseless light of day, fair and intelligent questioning of the data, the means, the motives, and the accuracy of Hansen’s conclusions must be stopped.  At all cost.

Al Gore has said that climate change is the overarching issue of our time.  He’s right, but for very different reasons than many believe.  Climate change offers cover for would-be dictators and totalitarians to abrogate freedoms, establish world government, and choke out, for good, the nasty conservatives who, throughout recent history, have stood athwart the diabolical plans of despots like Gore, yelling “Stop!”

*UPDATE*  This is un-f***ing-believable.  Or, wait . . . we should have seen it coming.  Anthony Watts reports that British newspapers, today, carried full-color enviro-Nazi propaganda sheets encouraging kids to rat out their families, friends, and neighbors for “climate crimes.”  Watts:

I find this method of indoctrinating school children to normal everyday living being harmful to the earth with the “climate crime” connotation as distasteful and wrong headed. I have no problems with energy conservation, in fact I encourage it. But combining  such advice with a “climate cop” idea is the wrong way to get the message across. Can you imagine what sort of reaction the neighbors will have to the kids hanging this door hanger on their front door? Will the result of this now be hiding your electric dryer behind false walls so the kids and neighbors don’t see it?


If you haven’t lately, you might want to re-read “The Diary of Anne Frank” and “The Gulag Archipelago.”  The Greenhouse Gestapo will sound and behave much like the Nazis and KGB.  Heil Hansen.

More on Hansen’s Fraud

Reading Time: 3 minutes

While my flaming headline (“Dr. James Hansen of GISS is a Liar and Fraud“) received a fair amount of attention, people a lot smarter than I are carefully documenting the facts that led to my unavoidable conclusion.

One such appears on the Telegraph today.  Christopher Booker (corrected link) notes that Dr. Hansen’s GISS center is alone in seeing continued warming throughout the world. 

Pointing out that laws supported by Hansen, Al Gore, and others will cost tens of trillions of dollars and severely limit freedoms throughout the world for the generations, Booker rightly contends that those proposing such a retreat from liberty be damn well sure they’re right. 

On this point, the evidence against Hansen is compelling:

  • Hansen’s monthly temperature reports are wildly out of line with every other global temperature measure, and the delta increases each month
  • Three of the four global temperature measures have shown world temps flat or cooling since 2001, with Hansen the exception
  • Hansen’s NASA rejects satellite temperatures, relying instead on ground-based mercury systems, while the other three would kill for the NASA satellite data
  • Satellite data–of both temperature and ocean levels–increasingly disagree with Hansen’s reports
  • Hansen, unlike the leading scientists of the other three bodies, stands alone in calling for international dictatorship to combat global warming
  • Hansen is the most politically active of the leading scientists in the field
  • Hansen has a lifetime’s reputation to lose if he’s wrong

Booker points out the starkness of the contrast between GISS and everyone else who studies climate:

The other three all show a flattening out after 2001 and a marked downward plunge of 0.6 degrees Celsius in 2007/8, equivalent to almost all the net warming recorded in the 20th century. (For comparisons see “Is the Earth getting warmer, or colder?” by Steven Goddard on The Register website.)

The meat of Booker’s piece, though, is the outstanding work of two scientists who someday may be credited as humanity’s liberators from the despotism of global warming liars:  Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre.

Watts runs the best climate and weather blog on the planet, Watts Up With That.  McIntyre is the man who has exposed more fraud in the global warming community than any other human being:

It was McIntyre who last year forced Hansen to publish revised figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest years of the 20th century were not in the 1990s, as Hansen had claimed, but in the 1930s. He has now shown that Hansen had been adjusting almost all his pre-1970 global temperature figures downwards, by as much as 0.5 degrees, and his post-1970 figures upwards.

In so doing, McIntyre exposed Hansen as a fraud.  No reasonable person could conclude that Hansen was simply wrong, that he overlooked something.  As I said, Hansen has a lifetime of work depending on global warming’s worst case scenario.  He wouldn’t overlook a thing. 

But were he to find, deep in the crevasses of his data, that his apocalyptic conclusions are wrong, that CO2 does not force catastrophic climate change, that the earth’s warm spell of the last 100 years was mild compared to others, that a cool spell, not more heating, is upon us–if Hansen digested all of these things, then he would have to conclude that his 20 years of ranting make him a failure in what’s become his life’s work.

Given the choice of owning up to error or lying through data, it’s pretty clear that Hansen lied.  He lied about temperatures in the 1930s, and he lies, every day, about temperatures today.  He gives cred to radical politicians who crave your freedom the way a vampire craves your blood.  He advocates a new, global theocracy built on the phony religion of environmental whackness.   He advocates riots to change the laws before nature proves him wrong.

It is still too early to suggest that the recent drop in temperatures shown by everyone but him [Hansen] is proof that global warming has stopped. But the fact is that not one of those vaunted computer models predicted what has happened to temperatures in recent years. Yet it is on those models (and Hansen’s alarmist figures) that our politicians are basing all their proposals for irrevocably changing our lives.

For the sake of your freedom and your children’s freedoms, stop James Hansen.  I called Hansen out big time, and I’m just a computer geek.  Perhaps more scientists will take a chance and expose Hansen for the fraud he is.


See this Denver Post article from 2006.

Many thanks to Tom Nelson for the kind link.  I help my readers wander over to his site.

Obama’s 180 on Troops in Iraq

Reading Time: 2 minutes

The boy-candidate has changed his mind again. 

For the second third fourth umpteenth time in a week, Barack Obama has shifted his view of how long American forces must stay in Iraq.  His latest position “articulated” Saturday in an interview with Newsweek parrots the long-held positions of the Bush administration and of rival John McCain:  forever.

U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said in an interview published on Saturday the size of a residual U.S. force left in Iraq after the withdrawal of combat troops would be “entirely conditions-based.” [Reuters]

This will not sit well with the Code Pink and the rest of the “surrender at any cost” crowd.  It does sit well with the McCain campaign as the latest demonstration of Obama’s infantile understanding of how the world actually works–the very world in which claims citizenship and allegiance before and above his American citizenship.

“We welcome this latest shift in Senator Obama’s position, but it is obvious that it was only a lack of experience and judgment that kept him from arriving at this position sooner,” the campaign said in a statement.

McCain, like U.S. President George W. Bush, has opposed a fixed schedule for withdrawing combat troops, preferring to remain until Iraq is fully secure.

Barack told Fox News that his trip confirmed his views on foreign policy, apparently meaning that he never had any.  Former UN Ambassador John Bolton agrees:

If that is what the senator thought he was doing, he still has a lot to learn about both foreign policy and the views of the American people. Although well received in the Tiergarten, the Obama speech actually reveals an even more naive view of the world than we had previously been treated to in the United States. In addition, although most of the speech was substantively as content-free as his other campaign pronouncements, when substance did slip in, it was truly radical, from an American perspective. [Bolton in LA Times]

The media, which supports the Obama campaign with millions of dollars in donations, has pronounced Obama’s pretentious trip the final procession in his coronation as Lord Sovereign of the United States.  Time will tell.  For those of us who, like Bolton, lived through or bothered to learn about the Cold War, Obama’s actions and words abroad revealed a man less ready to be President than to begin freshman studies of history at a community college.

UPATE:  Allahpundit is having fun with this, too.