Propaganda and Culture Wars: Climategate and the death of science

Global warming is a hoax. Is that a surprise?

I read Sarah Palin’s commentary on Facebook today calling for Mr. Obama to boycott the climate conference in Copenhagen. As much as I admire Mrs. Palin, I have to disagree with one thing; as I posted on her page, Obama won’t investigate his ‘climate’ experts because they are part of the shadow government he wants to implement, that’s why. He can’t investigate people he’s counting on to push the environmentalist agenda bent on giving away our sovereignty to our enemies. Every day the federal government makes some stupid claim that human-made pollution is destroying the world and is taking steps to take over our ability to make choices and make our great nation the culprit of the world’s ills. There is no point in asking Obama to chastise the same people he counts on to help him accomplish his hope and change. He also has a strong backing in the Congress.

Global warming pseudo science has been the big lie to keep people from asking questions. Now that it’s out in the open idiots like Barbara Boxer say it’s a crime to reveal the emails because they were stolen. Really? How about the crime of usurping power from the American people? What about justice? Now truth and justice are considered crimes by the liberals and it makes sense. They are uncomfortable with the truth and they hang on to their make-believe world until the rest of us believe it.

Obama said clearly for two years of sitting on the senate bench voting present he wanted to ‘transform’ America and this message was delivered to the masses loud and clear during the campaign. That was not some cryptic speech, it was in plain English. Those of us who understood it then are praying now asking why this man was elected to office. This is indeed a transformation I want no part of and many Americans agree.

This tyranny must be stopped. We must question everything from now on even at great risk to our wellbeing because of a lie. Global warming…I was in Baghdad when it snowed…boy was that a typical global warming experience!

And as for science, the next time a relative gets sick with some rare disease say goodbye to conventional wisdom, seek other answers and challenge all research. There is no information we can trust now. The next time ladies, you go to the gynecologist for a check remember someone has declared breast exams and mammograms necessary only for women within a certain age group and that’s not you guess what? Good luck. Obama’s Czar Cass Sunstein and Rahm Emanuel’s brother Ezekiel Rahm, a ‘bioethicist’ and Obama’s choice for ‘health’ Czar have that very concept in mind for you. This is the guy who thinks that Eugenics – which by the way is NOT a rock band – is the most ethical way of dealing with life and death of humans. Rahm believes people who don’t fit a certain criteria, should not receive health care. But that’s just a glib description of the guy. You can read what he thinks here, a paper entitled Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions you tell me…these people think that you and me are bad for the environment. These are the same people who vilified the medical profession accusing doctors of cutting off limbs and doing unnecessary surgery to make a buck are out to get you and their scheme is finally made public but they’re fighting hard to do damage control.

Oh, but don’t let me limit your answers to that; how about all the money dumped into worthless and frivolous research like the NIH (National Institutes of Health) on Chinese hookers? It’s obvious that hookers in China need instruction on how not to drink too much on the job. In the meantime people die from disease all over the world.  It’s not looking good for science right now. Maybe we can study the impact the Chinese hookers could have if we send them to the moon. Even NASA has come under scrutiny. So much for stargazing.

For so long I defended the need to support even pure research because many good discoveries came from both design or from secondary results; many an accident in the lab has become an invention or treatment for disease to help humanity; always a welcomed outcome. Not anymore. Science has become yet another tool to manipulate our freedom to think for ourselves and those scientists who support this ideal are guilty of crimes against humanity. The reputation and relevance of scientific work, for those who actually do it to help humanity, has been tarnished and personal and professional greed has driven ‘scientists’ to support a hoax because their objective is to see who gets to be lauded as the best of whatever in academia. I for one don’t care. And for those scientists who had the courage to speak out but where drowned out by the mobsters I feel for you; you are the minority and losing the battle. The profession has lost credibility.

And so has its main spokesman – well, I never thought he had credibility – but Al Gore just cancelled his grip-and-grin appearance 

 in Copenhagen. That’s too bad because he’s probably afraid he’ll be confronted by people like Irish reporter Phelim McAleer as he questioned the validity of Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth and may have to actually answer why he thinks polar bears are so endangered when clearly it’s humanity these commies are trying to destroy. Not only that, Gore continues to fill his pockets with money from ventures that go against his supposed environmental philosophy but doesn’t want you or me to grow prosperous.

So you know what? I’ve had it with this bad science. When someone tells me I eat too much of anything or that I create too much trash I’m going to do the exact opposite. That’s right. You know what I’m having for breakfast this morning?

Pork rinds, grape juice and bread and as soon as I stop typing this I’m going to get me the biggest cup of coffee – regular, no decaf – I can find and chug the whole thing. Why? Because I want to and this is my life and having choices is truly happiness. This is called freedom and it tastes good! Take that, worshipers of world dominance. The gig is up.

More on Obama’s climate experts and other links:

Media being banned from the conference

Earth warming

Hackers vs climate hoax


6 Responses to “Propaganda and Culture Wars: Climategate and the death of science”

  1. “Climategate” started out when there appeared on the Internet a collection of e-mails of a group of climatologists who work in the University of East Anglia in England. These documents reveal that some climatologists of international preeminence have manipulated the data of their investigations and have strongly tried to discredit climatologists who are not convinced that the increasing quantities of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are the cause of global warming.

    It is true that a majority of the scientists who study climatic tendencies in our atmosphere have arrived at the conclusion that the world’s climate is changing, and they have convinced a group of politicians, some of whom are politically powerful, of the truth of their conclusions.

    A minority, however, is skeptical. Some believe that recent data that suggest that the average temperature of the atmosphere is going up can be explained by natural variations in solar radiation and that global warming is a temporary phenomenon. Others believe that the historical evidence indicating that the temperature of the atmosphere is going up at a dangerous rate is simply not reliable.

    Such lacks of agreement are common in the sciences. They are reduced and eventually eliminated with the accumulation of new evidence and of more refined theories or even by completely new ones. Such debates can persist for a period of decades. Academics often throw invective at one another in these debates. But typically this does not mean much.

    But the case of climate change is different. If the evidence indicates that global warming is progressive, is caused principally by our industrial processes, and will probably cause disastrous changes in our atmosphere before the end of the twenty-first century, then we do not have the time to verify precisely if this evidence is reliable. Such a process would be a question of many years of new investigations. And if the alarmist climatologists are right, such a delay would be tragic for all humanity.

    The difficulty is that economic and climatologic systems are very complicated. They are not like celestial mechanics, which involves only the interaction of gravity and centrifugal force, and efforts to construct computerized models to describe these complicated systems simply cannot include all the factors that are influential in the evolution of these complicated systems.

    All this does not necessarily indicate that the alarmist climatologists are not right. But it really means that if global warming is occurring, we cannot know exactly what will be the average temperature of our atmosphere in the year 2100 and what will be the average sea level of the world’s ocean in that year.

    It also means that we cannot be confident that efforts by the industrialized countries to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will have a significant influence on the evolution of the world’s climate.

    Alas, the reduction of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would be very costly and would greatly change the lives of all the inhabitants of our planet–with the possibility (perhaps even the probability!) that all these efforts will be completely useless.

    Harleigh Kyson Jr.

    • Harleigh,

      Thanks for your posting and I do have to say that yes, there is always a probability that climate changes will affect humanity but I do not believe that such changes are the direct result of human existence on the planet. Well, actually, some humans have and will bring about death and destruction to humankind because of climate change legislation, but I will go into that shortly.
      Climategate has brought into public view what really goes on in academia in that professional rivalries and the desire to attain a higher academic standing in the community have spurred on a war amongst scientists that have impacted our quality of life. The discovery and publication of the East Anglia emails have opened the proverbial window into that world and now average people can see just how destructive a selfish ideology these scientists practice. Ultimately their alleged false data could lead to harming or killing people and that merits further examination.
      I have some insight into this environmental movement and I chose not to include it in my first posting because there is sufficient history out there so I did not want to continue to chew on that point but here I am. Your comments do raise more points of discussion. Global climate change campaigns to me are nothing more than drastic measures to speed the process of people control. It’s either through the introduction of health care reform (everything here is tied together) that forces people to eat better, exercise and whatnot… to convincing people that what they drive will someday destroy their children’s fresh air. I’m being glib on purpose because; I’d say that injecting fear into the world’s population is very effective, regardless of the validity and reliability of the data produced and published. Someone is clearly going to profit from this whole thing and it’s not humanity.

      I worked for a person in VA who posed as a ‘scientist’ and inventor. I needed the job until I could get my life straight as I was going through some issues and the job was something I could do and sounded interesting. First and foremost, I would be working for a really neurotic liberal, something that was manifested a day after I started. I should have passed on the job as I lasted three weeks but I had to take it. I learned a lot about environmental products and manufacturing in that short time, enough to convince me that this whole thing is nothing more than a movement to destroy some industries to make room for others.

      The scientist/inventor claimed that air pollutants and household chemicals were directly linked to symptoms exhibited in autistic children. Basically, pollution causes this condition. The scientist was proud to say that the research done for this private company could not be duplicated by a group of peers. Other scientists could not prove that the methods used by this person were indeed effective in reducing the onset of autism in children by blocking these chemicals in the air with filters in the windows and so forth. A basic environmental home kit, filters, AC units outfitted with more filters (the idea was to turn a house into a clean room) and some other stuff like linens made with unbleached fabrics and clothing too. I could go on. A house could look like hospital. The basic package ran about $15k. Another thing sold to clients was foods made from vegetables and legumes not usually found in the American diet. This purposely targeted adults and especially children with food allergies, which is something I support because there is credible research on that and some allergies can cause serious health problems. What bothered me was the fact that if a certain food was not available because of a delay in production then that client or the client’s children would not be able to eat it then would have to substitute it with another ‘special’ food or go without. So now we’re talking about an exclusive product or products that a person has become dependent on. The problem I have with all that is a person sees no other alternative but to use or eat a product like their life depends on it, and prescribed by someone who is not qualified. I knew that the methodology used in manufacturing the stuff was bunk and I went on to other things but I will never forget that experience. I make my own decisions and if I’m offered one theory I will challenge it until I find the information I need.

      Unless the person giving the advice is a nutritionist or a physician (this person was not) I would shy away from depending on these types of treatments. One could inadvertently cause more harm to the person by eliminating foods or other environmental factors that may actually help build immunity. This scientist I speak of used to go on and on about how the industrial revolution and manmade pollution over the past 100 years has done all this damage to people. Interesting that thing about 100 years, I keep hearing that a lot every time people talk about the environment or political and social change. It is interesting indeed that people who support this line of thinking all speak of the same timeline.

      Some humans are dangerous to humans

      I see that environmentalists believe that humans are essentially bad for the world and that little by little we are being knocked down to lower levels of relevance, say, a bird is considered endangered unless we restrict access to a certain piece of land so that they can thrive. What happens when that bird chooses to nest on a tree in my back yard? Suddenly I would find myself trespassing according to environmentalists. Suddenly there would be restrictions as to what to do with the land then the government moves in for the kill. I may have to move. The quality of my life just changed because I don’t matter as much as a small creature. When did I the human lose my place in the world? This is just a scenario but under the circumstances and the level of fanaticism of these groups I am not going to rule it out.

      I mentioned at the beginning of my post that there is some truth to the possibility of man causing damage to the earth. I do agree that this is possible but not from the industry perspective but from the scientific perspective. Look at Rachel Carson ( She is revered by many as a savior of nature and defender of humans. I see her as someone who was instrumental in the spread of disease and responsible for the deaths of many people, especially children, from malaria because she campaigned against it. The truth is that DDT was very effective in eliminating malaria which was killing scores of people in Africa but someone thought that hey, if we save their lives now they will continue to reproduce. What bothers me about Carson is that she cited in her book the results of an experiment with quail and pheasants (the birds were fed a lot of the chemical and could not reproduce as well as others). Banning DDT did a lot of harm but made the EPA the ruler of the environment and not about helping people.

      Green warfare

      How about that green ammunition ( introduced in the 1990s? The health scare was that depleted uranium was so toxic. No one disputes that. A study was conducted showing that tungsten, which was used as a replacement element in munitions manufacturing (including tank shells), turned out to be more toxic to humans because it moves into the ground and is considered a carcinogen. The new ammo also caused problems with the weapons causing damage to them so to solve one problem we create a new one.

      We’re not stupid

      Even little children engage in empirical research. Humans have the capacity for self-realization and self-awareness in comparison to other creatures on earth. It is part curiosity and part contempt for nature to think of ourselves as the masters of the earth, manipulators of weather maybe, but there will always be a limit to what we can do. That humans can invent a way to keep pathogens (Louis Pasteur) from killing people by introducing simple hand washing techniques while others create a cult of let’s hate humans and protect polar bears floating on chunks of ice (yet their sex lives appear to be improving somehow) tells me we’re going to become an endangered species. We are all scientists. We think and analyze our surroundings and one thing that I perceive is that our existence is being regulated for a purpose other than nature conservation. My senses tell me I’m being silently hunted into extinction.

      Countries such as China and India refuse to enter into a written agreement with other nations to reduce their carbon emissions and regulate their environment because yes, on the economic level, humans are part of the planet and how we grow food or build shelter does have an impact on our surroundings and they understand that when those things go away they will not become a developed nation. I have had contact with people from many of these developing countries and visited many others and saw for myself how those countries do not have the infrastructure to support environment and public health friendly endeavors because it takes time to establish those systems. Once that is done, and I know I’m being simplistic here, how those countries handle their environmental issues will be more manageable. The quality of life can only be attained through the same industrialization we experienced in the west. Now in Copenhagen I hear that also Iran, Venezuela and Zimbabwe think they should get a piece of the wealth redistribution plan. I do not see an intelligent and logical plan for these countries to explain why demanding payment from developed nations has anything to do with the environment. What I do see is an advance on our national security as well.
      Given the lack of credible reasons given by the environmentalist movement supporters I cannot subscribe to the global warming, climate change mentality because as a developed nation, the U.S. has spearheaded plenty of technological measures to make ourselves a cleaner and healthier society as well as prosperous. Without that ability we will be doomed to poverty that will lead to the same conditions developing countries suffer from and want to overcome. My question is do we really want to go down that path just to go along with other countries? I feel sorry for those people protesting the Copenhagen summit demanding environmental justice. Ignorance is bliss and there is plenty of it spreading all over the world. When those supporters of the environmental lie are led into the slaughterhouse I hope they remain ignorant and spare them the horror of enslavement because we’re not supposed to do anything in our lives unless some scientist says it’s okay. There goes freedom.

      Thank you for your comments. You have given me even more issues to think about.

  2. Maggie:

    Your “outing” of Rachel Carson was spot on and I can’t actually add much to your post. However, if you will indulge me for a time, I’d like to type just a few lines about the religion of “environmentalism”.

    As a young man in high school I listened with dread about global cooling, how in just a few years, two or three decades, the earth would be much colder and that large areas would be covered with ice. Voila, a new ice age! I read with horror about the hole in the ozone layer that was going to cook all the South Pole and large areas of Australia.

    As an adult in the Navy I was trained in Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine. I studied communicable diseases, their treatment, and prevention. I studied environmental pollutants such as asbestos. I read Rachel Carson. I believed her; I believed all she had written and all she believed. I’m sure I frustrated my wife as she tried to make me understand everything was not as it seemed.

    I finally started looking at what I believed with a more open mind. How could man allow other men to live with diseases such as Malaria when there was a perfectly good method of eliminating the mosquito…DDT? I knew from my studies of communicable diseases that soldiers at one time were dusted with DDT to kill external parasites and bugs, with very little real side effects. I learned that more persons died from preventable diseases because of the ban on DDT that was the result of “Silent Spring”. Again, I wondered if this was truly good. I have since decided it isn’t.

    The religion of “environmentalism” wants man to go back to the days of horse and buggy. It wants all men, except the high priests/priestesses, to be at the same level. Since it is almost impossible for all men to come up to the level of the first world, then all men must go down to the level of the third world. Using “climate change”, endangered species, and all the other “boogie men” of the religion the high priests/priestesses will take from the haves and give to the have nots…after taking what they consider their share making them richer. They will do this using the coercive power of the government…to paraphrase Colonel Klink, ”ve have vays of making you pay”. This all smacks of communism, pure and simple, it has never worked and never will work; but hey, the elites must try because “We the People” are not important.

    I will leave you with the following thought. When Benjamin Franklin was leaving at the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 a lady in the crowd asked the following, “Well, Doctor, what have we got-a Republic or a Monarchy?” His answer has become one of my favorite quotes, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” I’m afraid that Dr. Franklin would see our current predicament with cap & tax, health care, “climate change” (still laugh about that), and the radical environmental movement as “you didn’t keep it.”

    BTW, I do believe in climate change…fall turns to winter, which turns to spring, which turns to summer, which turns to fall….

    The Backup

    • Thanks for your post. Rachel Carson sold out humanity for fame and recognition.

      That reminds me of a twitter entry by Michael Yon ( last week about a soldier who died from Congo-Crimean Hemorraghic fever. There are many environmental challenges in Iraq and Afghanistan that are not being addressed because of bans on effective preventive measures. Someone I know who is in Afghanistan told me recently that he had noticed a spot on his forearm and leg that looked strange and he’s not someone to ask to go home for a shrapnel injury let alone a bug bite. I got concerned because he was concerned. He actually wanted to get medevaced to get it checked out. I hope that turns out alright.

      His take on the bug thing is that it is too cold in Afghanistan for bugs to bite. I disagree. In Iraq I’ve found that during the winter months flies, mosquitos and other strange bugs are out and about and someone may ask how? All life adapts to changing weather patterns and bugs are not different. It’s too hot in Iraq or Afghanistan for them to live yet you see them in winter. Back home in the states it’s the complete opposite. There is some strange stuff out there and our troops are being exposed to all kinds of threats of medical significance which brings me back to my post on envrironmentalism because it’s not designed to care for human’s health.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: