If Congress and these nitwits get their way, I will shrug.

I will turn my every asset into cash or gold and I will cease to do business with these governments, these liars, these fascist progressives. And I will not support a Republican who tolerates them. Get some guts or get out. I have had it with civility.

I will make sure every tax dollar they take from me costs them 2X what they collect. I will make them feed and clothe me while I work against them. I will not work for them as a slave.

If there really is no climate crisis that is a good thing, right? Why wouldn’t everyone want to get to the bottom of this to find out if it’s really necessary for us to reorganize the global economy because of a nonexistent problem?

It looks like this is finally starting to trickle out into the mainstream media. It will be interesting to see if/when/how the Obama administration ever acknowledges this, and whether it will have any effect on the Copenhagen talks. Is this going to be just another in a long series of appearances on the global stage where our president looks like a complete buffoon?

The only TV stations in English in the hotels are BBC and MTV. On BBC, all of the newscasts that referred to climate change, assumed it to be a real and immenent threat. At least back home the media pretends to portray it as not settled. I’ve heard no mention of the emails and data released either.

as thugh the emils and data leaked never happened. In his speech, with the visiting Prime Minister of India, he still talked about the need for action, as though the Indian PM doesn’t understand english, or his interpreters don’t understand spin when they hear it. That night they had a party, or rather a state dinner, you know the one where the uninvited lady in the cherry dress showed up. This is funny because it was the Indian PM who was here at the time, who will not destroy his countrys growing economy over something not only unproven, but now disporoven.

Settled science, and all.

and talked about it one day on air, after the leak, with someone advising if you own stock in any green companies to get out quick. It seems that the green companies, especially like GE are in it to win it. I suspect that since this scam started many years ago, there are alot of companies that would fold without the green movement, and, they are not going to sit back and watch the millions in their eyes dissapear. I guess with the denials we will still be obligated to buy the squiggely light bulbs, or sit in the dark.

I mean, when Moore-on does a film it is definately “settled science” then. lol

If there wasn’t Warming paranoia buried into 75% of all films coming out of Hollywood already he’d probably do one. I wish he would, it would go a long way to showing follks (if he believes it, you know its a “nut” idea) it is indeed all a sham Liberal/Democrat Power/Money grab.

Like all things Liberal, it all has to do with Liberal Laziness and Denial of Facts!

that are going to fund the green projects. I honestly think that not only the country, but the world, have already invested so much in the movement, it would have major economic reprecussions if it was ever turned around. I wouldn’t mind seeing the cultists lose, but, has it already spread to wide and to far?

These nimrods who had their emails published are crying foul because their hoax was exposed by people who are looking for questionable practices. Should they be looking for Evites to university mixers? Should they be collecting Ecards sent for their birthdays? Should we peer into the emails about meeting someone for lunch? For heaven’s sake, of course we are looking at the emails that are shady and not the ones asking whose going to bring the cookies for the office get together. Why would we look at the emails detailing that which they have published? People want to know if there is a conspiracy, which in spite of the left’s belief system, is a secret pact and not a public one.

The only “appropriate context” for those emails in the minds of the people who wrote them was for them never to have seen the light of day. What is meant by “taking them in context” really means: “You should never have seen them in the first place, corncob.”

NT

If Green Energy was and is so good, why — in the biggest Democrat state in the country proportionally — has Massachusetts resisted placing wind power in the NOAA Class V-VI wind area off of its coasts?

The United States possesses large, untapped wind energy potential. Wind energy has not been developed anywhere along the 95,000 miles of U.S. coastline. Land-based wind energy projects have been developed and are typically located on mountain passes or flat, broad plains where strong winds blow consistently. Coastal wind energy is becoming more feasible as our abilities to predict wind speed, variability, and energy potential
improve. The best site for coastal wind energy is in the vicinity of Cape Cod and Nantucket Island where wind power may attain class 6.”

In other words, the costal areas of Massachusetts are, in the estimation of NOAA, *THE BEST* prospective areas for the development of wind energy in this country. What is being built there?

Nothing. Crickets and raindrops. There’s zero going on there.

This isn’t a meaningless question or an unimportant one politically. Massachusetts consistently has the third or fourth highest electricity rates in the country and the coastlines here have some of the *best* wind areas in the hemisphere. But there aren’t any large windfarms here, and the one or two turbines you do see are barely turning. One can only conclude that the important people who live along the coastlines don’t want them.

Because it interferes with their sight lines. It’s a very beautiful area, and nobody wants to see towers with turbines on them.

They would much rather have to imagine you having them in your back yard. It’ll be something they can say makes them feel badly for the poor.

Massachusetts would rather buy oil from Hugo Chavez than disturb the sanctity and pristine sight lines of the wind areas near Nantucket. And that is exactly what they do. Even if energy prices here triple, there will never be wind farms off the coast of Nantucket. You can take that to the bank.

(Man-made modifies “Issue”, not “Warming.)

Mark Steyn of the National Review writes about this “Peer Collusion” :

And that’s what Andrew Revkin (of the NY Times) did, week in, week out: He took the words out of Michael Mann’s mouth and served them up to impressionable readers of the New York Times and opportunist politicians around the world champing at the bit to inaugurate a vast global regulatory body to confiscate trillions of dollars of your hard-earned wealth in the cause of “saving the planet” from an imaginary crisis concocted by a few dozen thuggish ideologues.

Earlier in the article, Steyn cites specific actions of the thugs

Here’s what Phil Jones of the CRU and his colleague Michael Mann of Penn State mean by “peer review.” When Climate Research published a paper dissenting from the Jones-Mann “consensus,” Jones demanded that the journal “rid itself of this troublesome editor,” and Mann advised that “we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers.”

So much for Climate Research. When Geophysical Research Letters also showed signs of wandering off the “consensus” reservation, Dr. Tom Wigley (“one of the world’s foremost experts on climate change”) suggested they get the goods on its editor, Jim Saiers, and go to his bosses at the American Geophysical Union to “get him ousted.” When another pair of troublesome dissenters emerge, Dr. Jones assured Dr. Mann, “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Which in essence is what they did. The more frantically they talked up “peer review” as the only legitimate basis for criticism, the more assiduously they turned the process into what James Lewis calls the Chicago machine politics of international science. The headline in the Wall Street Journal Europe is unimproveable: “How To Forge A Consensus.” Pressuring publishers, firing editors, blacklisting scientists: That’s “peer review,” climate-style.

check this out: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response (h/t Drudge)

This one doesn’t even pass the red face on a seven year old test for lying.

Someone needs to start investigating these LIARS

“In recent days a lengthy file of emails has been made public. Some of the questions raised through those emails may have been addressed already by the NAS investigation but others may not have been considered. The University is looking into this matter further, following a well defined policy used in such cases. No public discussion of the matter will occur while the University is reviewing the concerns that have been raised.”

It’s a blip but its something and I note that while the LEFTIST media doesn’t WANT to cover it little by little they are dripping it out of course with excuses prior to the story but none the less it is getting out beyond the internet.

Whoever has his enemy at his mercy &
does not destroy him is his own enemy

Sacred cows sure are noisy when slaughtered.

So, let me get this straight - glowbull warming is finally proven to be MANN made?

I’m so confused.
.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/politics_and_greenhouse_gasses.html

Times of London shocker - ToL looks…and sees…disappeared data.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

“Climate Change Data Dumped”

Another ToL piece from today:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936289.ece

“The Great Climate Change Science Scandal”

Britain has been living under the climate regulation/tax regime for years already. Methinks it is heating up a bit across the pond.

Onward to Copenhagen
Onward to global socialism