dennislmay

Global Cooling

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html

Ocean current related global cooling starting up about the same time real scientists in Russian predict the start of the next mini ice age which will last well beyond the ocean current related cooling [the same mini ice age predicted in the 70's].

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That theory was around at least as far back as when Art Bell ran the C2C show. The author of the iceagenow website was one of the kooks on the Art Bell show. On the same show you had time travel and ghosts and astral travel and psychics and hollow earth and time traveler John Titor and all that nonsense. Even I don't take that stuff seriously.

http://www.iceagenow.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show of hands - who supports the Global Warming/Climate Change hysteria as valid science? I knew it is junk science from the start because such a large highly non-nonlinear system cannot be modeled beyond a very short time span and even then the present data available and models are not good enough to even begin to do such modeling [and they have done exactly zero code validation experiments in the field - whereas valid codes do thousands of experiments per component of the model over a range of conditions] - I did Hydro-code modeling and non-linear electronic materials modeling in the Air Force. It is obvious BS to anyone who has done any such modeling.

The Global Warming/Climate Change hysteria is entirely political and has thus far been immune from the evidence of their wrong predictions. Real science is very different than the Global Warming/Climate Change hysteria - the coming mini ice age has a real basis in orbital mechanics and historical records.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show of hands - who supports the Global Warming/Climate Change hysteria as valid science?

Of course real science is not a democracy - voting does not bring about a correct view of reality. Consensus has no ability to make a science valid.

It would be interesting to see how many climate modeling people have worked in validated code modeling in other fields in the physical sciences [outside of weather and climate modeling] - Eulerian hydrocode modeling of mixed materials in particular. Since there are no validated [feedback from experiments in the field] codes for mixed material Eulerian hydrocodes in weather or climate modeling the weather and climate modeling people can only have gained experience working in other fields [such as done by DOD].

Most of the work I did was in Epic [Langrangian] and Hull [Eulerian] plus hybrid modeling using both.

https://cfwebprod.sandia.gov/cfdocs/CCIM/docs/Rider_CSRI_June27_2007.pdf

Unless you believe Eulerian modeling based weather predictions have reached a mature state you cannot believe climate modeling has done so. More than 8 orders of magnitude in required modeling detail and data [realistically much more] separates present climate modeling from its ability to model climate one month in advance at the detail climate change proponents claim to be able to do years and decades in advance. That doesn't even count the entire lack of data concerning experiments done in the field about sources, sinks, and non-linear mechanisms of the actual components involved in the climate. Throw in unknown factors involving the sun, cosmic rays, volcanoes, [cannot be validated from experiment] and all you can do is give very short term approximations at best.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to see how many climate modeling people have worked in validated code modeling in other fields in the physical sciences [outside of weather and climate modeling] - Eulerian hydrocode modeling of mixed materials in particular. Since there are no validated [feedback from experiments in the field] codes for mixed material Eulerian hydrocodes in weather or climate modeling the weather and climate modeling people can only have gained experience working in other fields [such as done by DOD].

Most of the work I did was in Epic [Langrangian] and Hull [Eulerian] plus hybrid modeling using both.

https://cfwebprod.sandia.gov/cfdocs/CCIM/docs/Rider_CSRI_June27_2007.pdf

Unless you believe Eulerian modeling based weather predictions have reached a mature state you cannot believe climate modeling has done so. More than 8 orders of magnitude in required modeling detail and data [realistically much more] separates present climate modeling from its ability to model climate one month in advance at the detail climate change proponents claim to be able to do years and decades in advance. That doesn't even count the entire lack of data concerning experiments done in the field about sources, sinks, and non-linear mechanisms of the actual components involved in the climate. Throw in unknown factors involving the sun, cosmic rays, volcanoes, [cannot be validated from experiment] and all you can do is give very short term approximations at best.

Dennis

I do not know the size of the currently available pool of researchers with validated Eulerian mixed material code experience. I know that at the height of spending on R&D during the cold war [1983-1989] there were about 25 full time people in DOD involved in unclassified Hydrocode modeling at any given time. Of those 25 I personally only knew of 1 full time Air Force guy and 2 full time contractors doing validated Eulerian mixed material code modeling. I know that a larger number [perhaps 25?] were doing classified validated Eulerian mixed material code modeling full time - over half of those would have been contractors or civilian DOD. There has been a number of people doing academic work on various aspects of modeling all along - very very few of those people actually get involved in much hands on modeling or writing code for any length of time.

What is going on today? A good question since DOD spending on all R&D sank like a rock starting about 1991 and has remained at a very low level ever since. What is the available pool of people with validated Eulerian mixed material code experience - very small I suspect - probably not enough to keep DOD happy much less allowing themselves to get involved in climate modeling unless they are true believers to begin with.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show of hands - who supports the Global Warming/Climate Change hysteria as valid science? I knew it is junk science from the start because such a large highly non-nonlinear system cannot be modeled beyond a very short time span and even then the present data available and models are not good enough to even begin to do such modeling [and they have done exactly zero code validation experiments in the field - whereas valid codes do thousands of experiments per component of the model over a range of conditions] - I did Hydro-code modeling and non-linear electronic materials modeling in the Air Force. It is obvious BS to anyone who has done any such modeling.

The Global Warming/Climate Change hysteria is entirely political and has thus far been immune from the evidence of their wrong predictions. Real science is very different than the Global Warming/Climate Change hysteria - the coming mini ice age has a real basis in orbital mechanics and historical records.

Dennis

When the next ice age comes, the eco-phreaks will blame it on global warming and the capitalists.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the next ice age comes, the eco-phreaks will blame it on global warming and the capitalists.

Ba'al Chatzaf

If you question political correctness - the reply is always: its George Bush's fault and you're a racist,

that is after you've been called a Flat-Earther.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the next ice age comes, the eco-phreaks will blame it on global warming and the capitalists.

Ba'al Chatzaf

If you question political correctness - the reply is always: its George Bush's fault and you're a racist,

that is after you've been called a Flat-Earther.

Dennis

And then the Republican response (McCain, Romney, etc.) is to implicitly accept the accusation that it's Bush's fault but to explain how they're different from Bush, and then to praise Obama and his attempts at fixing global warming, and to sheepishly suggest that he failed even though he's a super nice guy, and that we should try a new, Republican approach to fixing it (which is the same approach as Obama's, but just implemented slower).

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the next ice age comes, the eco-phreaks will blame it on global warming and the capitalists.

Ba'al Chatzaf

If you question political correctness - the reply is always: its George Bush's fault and you're a racist,

that is after you've been called a Flat-Earther.

Dennis

And then the Republican response (McCain, Romney, etc.) is to implicitly accept the accusation that it's Bush's fault but to explain how they're different from Bush, and then to praise Obama and his attempts at fixing global warming, and to sheepishly suggest that he failed even though he's a super nice guy, and that we should try a new, Republican approach to fixing it (which is the same approach as Obama's, but just implemented slower).

J

Obama and McCain are both hardcore Progressives - which is to say they are on the same side on many issues that are against the interests of the people of the United States. One should not equate Progressive Republicans [RINOs] with Republicans generally. Around 20% of elected Republicans are supportive of freedom and the rule of law, much more % wise in the electorate itself [perhaps approaching 40% of Republicans]. RINO Progressive Republicans are much more common in elective office % wise than in the populace. The rest of Republicans in elective office are go-along-to-get-along without a clue generally. Hardcore Progressive RINOs are often simply undercover Democrats more useful to the Democrats and the media because the word bi-partisan has clout among the clueless in swaying outcomes.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Global Warming/Climate Change hysteria is entirely political and has thus far been immune from the evidence of their wrong predictions. [....]

I don't think that the hysteria is "entirely political," or even entirely venal - i.e., motivated by perceived practical gain of one form or another (power, money, prestige).

I think that there's also a strong element of secular substitute religion - and religious beliefs do tend to be resistant to counter-evidence.

I've suspected for years that one of the appeals of climate alarmism for some persons of a secular leftist persuasion is the opportunity afforded for indulging in guilt-free apocalyptic thrills. Apocalyptic prophesies can provide an excitement, complete with lots of cataclysmic imagery. Secular leftists who are debarred by self-perceived sophistication from placing any credence on Biblical-based doomsday expectations can find an alternative - complete with the idea of punishment for human sins - in climate catastrophe scenarios.

More widely, as a lot of commenters have noticed, for some people "the environment" has become a modern deity, a kind of holy entity to be revered and ceremonially honored.

There are even environmentalist groups who hold facsimile Protestant-style worship services.

Larry went to one of these services conducted by a local group. He didn't realize what he was getting into. He thought that there was just going to be a lecture, so he went to do a bit of nudging in the Q&A. Turned out, there was a whole ritual: a call to congregate, a reading, singing of environment hymns, the lecture in the sermon slot, a meditation, an offering, a benediction. I figure that most of those who attended consider themselves atheists or at least agnostics tending toward disbelief - Skeptical Inquirer readers.

Among prominent climate "denialists," on the other hand, a notable number are staunchly Christian. They already have their religion.

A few even argue against alarmism on grounds which bring to mind the saying, "With friends like these...." For instance the Cornwall Alliance, members of which argue that climate alarmism has to be wrong because God wouldn't have given us so fragile a planet over which to hold dominion.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Global Warming/Climate Change hysteria is entirely political and has thus far been immune from the evidence of their wrong predictions. [....]

I don't think that the hysteria is "entirely political," or even entirely venal - i.e., motivated by perceived practical gain of one form or another (power, money, prestige).

I think that there's also a strong element of secular substitute religion - and religious beliefs do tend to be resistant to counter-evidence.

I've suspected for years that one of the appeals of climate alarmism for some persons of a secular leftist persuasion is the opportunity afforded for indulging in guilt-free apocalyptic thrills. Apocalyptic prophesies can provide an excitement, complete with lots of cataclysmic imagery. Secular leftists who are debarred by self-perceived sophistication from placing any credence on Biblical-based doomsday expectations can find an alternative - complete with the idea of punishment for human sins - in climate catastrophe scenarios.

More widely, as a lot of commenters have noticed, for some people "the environment" has become a modern deity, a kind of holy entity to be revered and ceremonially honored.

There are even environmentalist groups who hold facsimile Protestant-style worship services.

Larry went to one of these services conducted by a local group. He didn't realize what he was getting into. He thought that there was just going to be a lecture, so he went to do a bit of nudging in the Q&A. Turned out, there was a whole ritual: a call to congregate, a reading, singing of environment hymns, the lecture in the sermon slot, a meditation, an offering, a benediction. I figure that most of those who attended consider themselves atheists or at least agnostics tending toward disbelief - Skeptical Inquirer readers.

Among prominent climate "denialists," on the other hand, a notable number are staunchly Christian. They already have their religion.

A few even argue against alarmism on grounds which bring to mind the saying, "With friends like these...." For instance the Cornwall Alliance, members of which argue that climate alarmism has to be wrong because God wouldn't have given us so fragile a planet over which to hold dominion.

Ellen

I guess I should say the primary reason Global Warming/Climate Change has thus far been immune from the evidence is political. The politics includes factors other than just wealth redistribution - Green is the religion of the Reds.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting.

Is it just a concentration of Pantheism into a political fund raising machine as well as a movement?

The term ‘pantheism’ is a modern one, possibly first appearing in the writing of the Irish freethinker John Toland (1705) and constructed from the Greek roots pan (all) and theos (God). But if not the name, the ideas themselves are very ancient, and any survey of the history of philosophy will uncover numerous pantheist or pantheistically inclined thinkers; although it should also be noted that in many cases all that history has preserved for us are second-hand reportings of attributed doctrines, any reconstruction of which is too conjectural to provide much by way of philosophical illumination.

At its most general, pantheism may be understood positively as the view that God is identical with the cosmos, the view that there exists nothing which is outside of God, or else negatively as the rejection of any view that considers God as distinct from the universe.

However, given the complex and contested nature of the concepts involved, there is insufficient consensus among philosophers to permit the construction of any more detailed definition not open to serious objection from some quarter or other. Moreover, the label is a controversial one, where strong desires either to appropriate or to reject it often serve only to obscure the actual issues, and it would be a sad irony if pantheism revealed itself to be most like a traditional religion in its sectarian disputes over just what counts as ‘true pantheism.’ Therefore pantheism should not be thought of as a single codifiable position. Rather it should be understood as a diverse family of distinct doctrines; many of whom would be surprised — and, indeed, disconcerted—to find themselves regarded as members of a single household. Further, since the concept has porous and disputed boundaries there is no clear consensus on just who qualifies, no definitive roll-call of past pantheists. Given this situation the range of things that may be usefully said about all pantheisms is perhaps limited, but nonetheless a variety of concepts may be clarified, the nature of contentious issues explored, and the range of possible options more precisely mapped out.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting.

Is it just a concentration of Pantheism into a political fund raising machine as well as a movement?

It isn't just politicians getting money from it. Billions total of grant money. Subsidization of "green" industries and projects.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting.

Is it just a concentration of Pantheism into a political fund raising machine as well as a movement?

It isn't just politicians getting money from it. Billions total of grant money. Subsidization of "green" industries and projects.

Ellen

The carbon tax credit trading schemes are the trillion dollar payday.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The carbon tax credit trading schemes are the trillion dollar payday.

I'm not sure of the extent to which carbon trading is still "working" as a rip-off the way it did. Financial traders as a class aren't complete idiots, and the participation of other countries besides the U.S. is needed with carbon trading. There's an undercurrent of rebellion against environmentalism (among other things) in Europe, with the European Union falling apart. The Russians and the Chinese have never been gung-ho. Seems to me the carbon-trading is losing ground, but this is just an impression. I'd welcome figures if you have such.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The carbon tax credit trading schemes are the trillion dollar payday.

I'm not sure of the extent to which carbon trading is still "working" as a rip-off the way it did. Financial traders as a class aren't complete idiots, and the participation of other countries besides the U.S. is needed with carbon trading. There's an undercurrent of rebellion against environmentalism (among other things) in Europe, with the European Union falling apart. The Russians and the Chinese have never been gung-ho. Seems to me the carbon-trading is losing ground, but this is just an impression. I'd welcome figures if you have such.

Ellen

The carbon trading scheme is indeed losing ground but it is still being pushed at every opportunity. It will be the biggest payday for socialists there has ever been if they can pull it off. Those involved will keep pushing the idea no matter how long it takes and they have a growing religious cult backing them [Green is the new Red knee-jerk environmentalists]. So far they gambled on the short term climate going their way [apparent warming] and lost - but if there is even a 3-5 year warming spell down the road they will be right back on it saying "see I told you so" demanding immediate action. If there are crises in government going on at the same time they may well enact their scheme with or without popular support. Of course developing nations will be exempt - only the rich West will have to be robbed.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Score one for Dennis!

In a Nature Climate Change article entitled “Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years.”

Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This
difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and
internal climate variability.

http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/over%20estimate.pdf

The evidence, therefore, indicates that the current generation of climate models (when run as a group) do not reproduce the observed global warming over the past 20 years, or the slowdown in global warming over the past fifteen years. . .

Sad when the "scientists" have such a diffdicult time abandoning adendas!

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a report about the same article, Fox News stated that:

That’s the upshot of a new study in the journal Nature Climate Changeexternal-link.png that compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990's to the actual amount of warming. Out of 117 predictions, the study’s author told FoxNews.com, three were roughly accurate and 114 overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.

And I just love this paragraph in the FoxNews article:

But other scientists say that's making a mountain out of a molehill.

"This is neither surprising nor particularly troubling to me as a climate scientist," Melanie Fitzpatrick, a climate scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, told FoxNews.com. "The work of our community is constantly to refine our understanding of the climate system and improve models based on that," she added.

And you know that they are "concerned scientists" because it is in their name! Concerned about what? Beats me. Maybe their jobs and grant monies?

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a report about the same article, Fox News stated that:

That’s the upshot of a new study in the journal Nature Climate Changeexternal-link.png that compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990's to the actual amount of warming. Out of 117 predictions, the study’s author told FoxNews.com, three were roughly accurate and 114 overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.

And I just love this paragraph in the FoxNews article:

But other scientists say that's making a mountain out of a molehill.

"This is neither surprising nor particularly troubling to me as a climate scientist," Melanie Fitzpatrick, a climate scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, told FoxNews.com. "The work of our community is constantly to refine our understanding of the climate system and improve models based on that," she added.

And you know that they are "concerned scientists" because it is in their name! Concerned about what? Beats me. Maybe their jobs and grant monies?

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/

Though interesting the articles miss the point by assuming that going back to the drawing board or improving the models is going to fix the problem. The error is in assuming that climate modeling is even being approached as a science or is doing any valid modeling. Real Eulerian mixed material hydro-codes are validated by experiments in the field for each and every component of the model - absolutely none of that is being done for climate modeling. The one proposal I saw a year to two ago to begin such experiments was immediately defunded. In other words there is no basis in validated code for any of the climate modeling and there is no intention to ever develop validated codes. Now even if we were to assume they were doing the real work required in legitimate modeling the next questions become the grid size, the data supporting the grid size, the quality of the experiments supporting the non-linear models for each and every component and the range of their validity and interaction with other components, the range of external variables not subject to experimental validation, and the validity of the time horizon of such modeling based on the degree of non-linearity involved. I did Lagrangian hydrocode modeling full time and Eulerian modeling occasionally [trained in it] for 2 years back in the day. I did that plus other simpler non-linear modeling for another 5 years for what is now called the Air Force Research Laboratory. Climate modeling has zero validated experiments done in the field. As a counter example - in Lagrangian hydrocode modeling a guy I worked with would do runs of 1,200 samples for each and every material over the non-linear range of interest - Lagrangian being the simpler code. In Eulerian code validation hundreds of experiments in the field for each and every mixed material assembly were done - besides the thousands done for each material separately. Given all that preparation the highly non-linear modeling was only valid for a limited time range. On the scale of mixing you would encounter with climate modeling the best validated codes would certainly give you no more than a month of good modeling. From what I can see we are more than eight orders of magnitude away from having the grid size and data to do climate modeling out one month much less an entire lack of validated code or any of the experiments to support a validated code.

Don't treat climate modeling as a valid subject of discussion like tweaking or minor improvements are going to make a difference - or even going back to the drawing board. They are not even trying to do valid modeling and have no intention of allowing experiments to invalidate what they are claiming to do. It is an embarrassment beyond belief.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a report about the same article, Fox News stated that:

That’s the upshot of a new study in the journal Nature Climate Changeexternal-link.png that compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990's to the actual amount of warming. Out of 117 predictions, the study’s author told FoxNews.com, three were roughly accurate and 114 overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.

And I just love this paragraph in the FoxNews article:

But other scientists say that's making a mountain out of a molehill.

"This is neither surprising nor particularly troubling to me as a climate scientist," Melanie Fitzpatrick, a climate scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, told FoxNews.com. "The work of our community is constantly to refine our understanding of the climate system and improve models based on that," she added.

And you know that they are "concerned scientists" because it is in their name! Concerned about what? Beats me. Maybe their jobs and grant monies?

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/

Though interesting the articles miss the point by assuming that going back to the drawing board or improving the models is going to fix the problem. The error is in assuming that climate modeling is even being approached as a science or is doing any valid modeling. Real Eulerian mixed material hydro-codes are validated by experiments in the field for each and every component of the model - absolutely none of that is being done for climate modeling. The one proposal I saw a year to two ago to begin such experiments was immediately defunded. In other words there is no basis in validated code for any of the climate modeling and there is no intention to ever develop validated codes. Now even if we were to assume they were doing the real work required in legitimate modeling the next questions become the grid size, the data supporting the grid size, the quality of the experiments supporting the non-linear models for each and every component and the range of their validity and interaction with other components, the range of external variables not subject to experimental validation, and the validity of the time horizon of such modeling based on the degree of non-linearity involved. I did Lagrangian hydrocode modeling full time and Eulerian modeling occasionally [trained in it] for 2 years back in the day. I did that plus other simpler non-linear modeling for another 5 years for what is now called the Air Force Research Laboratory. Climate modeling has zero validated experiments done in the field. As a counter example - in Lagrangian hydrocode modeling a guy I worked with would do runs of 1,200 samples for each and every material over the non-linear range of interest - Lagrangian being the simpler code. In Eulerian code validation hundreds of experiments in the field for each and every mixed material assembly were done - besides the thousands done for each material separately. Given all that preparation the highly non-linear modeling was only valid for a limited time range. On the scale of mixing you would encounter with climate modeling the best validated codes would certainly give you no more than a month of good modeling. From what I can see we are more than eight orders of magnitude away from having the grid size and data to do climate modeling out one month much less an entire lack of validated code or any of the experiments to support a validated code.

Don't treat climate modeling as a valid subject of discussion like tweaking or minor improvements are going to make a difference - or even going back to the drawing board. They are not even trying to do valid modeling and have no intention of allowing experiments to invalidate what they are claiming to do. It is an embarrassment beyond belief.

Dennis

The counter arguments from climate modelers to what I have said above seems to be: we have discovered statistical ways to get around grid size, data density, and the time range of validity. The question then becomes if you are so clever why don't validated hydrocodes take all the same kinds of shortcuts? Why don't your results match observation - not even close? What would still remain is why won't you do experiments in the field [they don't feel the need to]. How do you justify models of your non-linear interactions individually and between components without experiments [they don't feel the need to]. How do you justify excluding external variables that are just now being studied [they don't feel the need to]. We have two worlds here - experimentally validated modeling developed for specific purposes knowing their limits, climate modeling breaking all the rules and getting the answers wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't treat climate modeling as a valid subject of discussion like tweaking or minor improvements are going to make a difference - or even going back to the drawing board. They are not even trying to do valid modeling and have no intention of allowing experiments to invalidate what they are claiming to do. It is an embarrassment beyond belief.

You are preaching to my chior.

This is the precursor argument to attacking the core modeling argument that you astutely addressed.

Not sure I truly understand all of your "coding" statements, however, since I engaged in modeling in a signifcant amount of the disciplines that I have learned, the comparison makes sense to me.

***********and I completely agree with your next post #22. Where is the data? Why did the "concerned scientists" delete the data?

Well, I have some theories that are based on the model of the possibility/probability of human corruption when public money, extorted from the individual citizen, becomes re-distrutable by the power elite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I have some theories that are based on the model of the possibility/probability of human corruption when public money, extorted from the individual citizen, becomes re-distrutable by the power elite.

The correct explanation behind all other explanations.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climategate 2.0: Scientists Pushed To Hide Data

Posted: 20 Sep 2013 01:52 PM PDT

climategate%202.0.jpg
Emails leaked to the AP show the U.S. and other governments pushed scientists preparing a new UN climate report due out next week to omit or downplay evidence that the earth's atmosphere has stopped warming for the past 15 years.

In other words, in the view of government, when the facts don't support its agenda and/or narrative, lie about the facts, change the facts, or hide them altogether.

But this certainly comes as no surprise to us Americans, right? After all, we've been getting a steady dose of this since 2008. We're accustomed to a certain president and his party's "three-step process" that begins with lies, then revises history to fit the desired story, and ends by attacking anyone who dares disagree and speak out. In the case of Climategate II ... we're kinda getting all 3 at once.

====================================================================================================

This seems to rise to the level of RICO.****

Look at some of the key cases where this has been used.

****http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...