The collusion of the climate crowd

Union of Concerned Scientists

Union of Concerned Scientists (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By Christopher C. Horner
First published in the Washington Examiner, reposted here with permission

Not long ago, the American Tradition Institute initiated a transparency campaign using federal and state freedom of information laws to learn more about how taxpayer-funded academics use their positions to advance a particular agenda. On its face, this should have been welcomed by the Left, which often lays claim to the “transparency” mantle. It is instead causing great angst.

Our project would compile the context to the “Climategate” scandal, which, as activist academics central to its revelations assured us, was really an out-of-context misrepresentation. Curiously, the same people think this project a very bad idea.

So do the media and environmentalist establishments. Of the latter, the Union of Concerned Scientists became particularly exercised, mobilizing left-wing groups to urge universities not to satisfy our requests for public documents.

None of these groups, incidentally, was troubled by a series of similar requests by Greenpeace, whose effort we replicated. They only became opposed when we sought the emails of the sort of activists with whom they work.

Some of these, recently obtained from Texas A&M University, provide one explanation for this reversal.

For example, they reveal a sophisticated UCS operation to assist activist academics and other government employees as authorities for promoting UCS’s agenda. This includes “moot-courting” congressional hearings with a team of UCS staff, all the way down to providing dossiers on key committee members, addressing in particular their faith, stance on gay marriage and stimulus spending. Of course.

This also includes directing the taxpayers’ servants to outside PR consultants — apparently pro bono or else on UCS’s dime. Keep this last point in mind.

They also expose the New York Times reporter who covers the environment, science and specifically the global warming issue, Justin Gillis, as being no disinterested party.

Gillis wrote a piece in May laboring to undermine one of the most highly credentialed and respected climate “skeptics,” the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Dr. Richard Lindzen. This front-page article prompted my request for information reflecting how the A&M professor and activist whom Gillis quoted was using his taxpayer-funded position.

The specific correspondence began when Gillis wrote that interviewing Lindzen for a piece on his area of expertise was “unavoidable,” and “[s]o I need a really good bibliography of all the published science” countering Lindzen’s position on cloud feedback — “that is, anything that stands as evidence against Lindzen’s claim that the feedback has to be strongly negative.”

Remember, this was a reporter for the New York Times writing this. In the released emails, Gillis comes off as an activist posing as a journalist, sneering at Lindzen. Of another prominent skeptic, Gillis wrote, “I sense you’ve got him in a trap here … can’t wait to see it sprung.” (Ellipses in original.)

Our transparency campaign caused much wailing and gnashing of teeth among academia and its affiliated societies, the Washington Post, and the American Constitution Society. They joined UCS to attest that these sacrosanct exchanges of ideas would be fatally chilled if not granted an unlegislated exemption from freedom of information laws.

So you might be surprised to learn that the Texas A&M email production shows the academics actually forwarding their email discussions outside their circle. To New York Times reporters, for example. They even often copy reporters on the very exchanges they otherwise insist represent an intellectual circle that must remain free from violation by prying, nonacademic eyes. Awkward.

Following my Texas A&M request, a producer contacted me from “Frontline,” a PBS program known for grinding liberal axes. She wanted to discuss our Freedom of Information Act litigation. As we are currently only involved in the high-profile case involving the University of Virginia’s Climategate records, I referred her to lead counsel.

It turns out she was really interested in records requests with two different, more cooperative schools: the Texas A&M request, and one I filed at Texas Tech University. The latter sought a professor and climate activist’s correspondence about a chapter she was writing for Newt Gingrich’s upcoming book. (Naturally, this Texas Tech professor who opposed providing me the emails had already provided them to a Los Angeles Times reporter.)

Now, you might ask, how would two otherwise fairly obscure Texas activists become the subject of interest to “Frontline”? That brings us back to UCS.

One of the emails produced by Texas A&M shows its activist contacting, and being given advice by, a D.C. media consultant, Richard Ades of Prism Public Affairs, “a strategic communications firm that operates at the intersection of public policy and the media” according to its website. The professor says he was referred by Aaron Huertas of UCS.

I have sent two other public records requests following up on these points. Expect the usual suspects to respond in their usual way. The media, academia and environmentalist pressure groups share an agenda, and work closely together to advance it. Remember this when these interests assail efforts to obtain public records shedding light on these activities.

Christopher C. Horner is director of litigation for the American Tradition Institute and author of the forthcoming book “The Liberal War on Transparency: Confessions of a Freedom of Information ‘Criminal’ ” (Threshold).

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

It should be noted that the Union of Concerned Scientists requires no scientific qualifications whatsoever for becoming a member of the organization. In fact, as demonstrated by the UCS membership granted to my family dog, all that is required to be part of UCS is a valid credit card, and they don’t even check if the member and the card match. – Anthony

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climategate, FOI and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

85 Responses to The collusion of the climate crowd

  1. Gunga Din says:

    If they actually practiced transparency then everybody could see through them.
    They can’t have that!

  2. AndyG55 says:

    Beware Anthony, if the UCS ever gets taken to court on these matters, Kenji, being a member of that august body (lol) may be called as a star witness, or may even face litigation.

    I see a conflict of interest looming !!

  3. Gary says:

    As a member of UCS, Kenji ought to request copies of Executive Board meeting minutes.

  4. Mike Bromley the Kurd says:

    Exactly what, aside from being capable of canine membeship, is a “union of concerned scientists”? I picture many nerdish people milling around in a dither with furrowed brows, wringing their hands and muttering about stuff. Institutionalized neurosis, as it were. Really, now, concerned about what? The concept is lost on me! I’m a scientist. Now and then I get concerned about some things. But do I reach out, Koombayah, seeking other scientists with similar concerns? Not! If something is that obvious, the concern about it will never materialize, or at least, it will be sort of self-correcting. Seems to me that if there needs, somehow, to ba a UCS, it is to create a sort of ‘brownshirt’ mentality to mash and crush those ‘concerns’ that have dick-all to do with science. Woof!

  5. RoyFOMR says:

    Is UCS K9 stripped-bark really worse than his lost-bytes?
    Assuming that Kenji is so exercised about CAGW denial why doesn’t he submit his own paper for peer-review. Seems that he is as well qualified as the rest of the pack!

  6. RoyFOMR says:

    Correction:~
    Tree-pee’er review

  7. Skiphil says:

    “context” is all, we are told, regarding Climategate….. the public is not permitted to assess that precious context. Kudos for Horner and ATI for working to provide more transparency. Show us our tax dollars at work, please!

    Well we have seen enough, thousands of emails plus so many deplorable public statements and deeds by numerous climatologists and their activist buds, to have a good grasp of that context.

    In fact, in every case I can think of more context makes The Team look worse not better! (no wonder they are fighting FOI tooth-and-nail). The activist scientists and journalists have spent years building their record of collusion — of course they want to keep it under wraps.

    p.s. an idea: Kenji is more qualified to be put forward for the Board of UCS than Mooney is to be on the Board of the AGU. In fact, Kenji would actually bring some quality and distinction, rather than (ala Mooney) propaganda and notoriety! Maybe a write-in campaign is needed….

  8. tckev says:

    So, what has your dog told the reporters? Interested canines want to know!

  9. Merovign says:

    Well, transparently dishonest” is a *form* of transparency.

    To paraphrase Douglas Adams, I trust reporters about as far as I can comfortably spit out a rat.

  10. gerrydorrian66 says:

    Shortly before Climategate became public, I heard from an American journalist that the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit had been deleting data. As I live in East Anglia and am concerned about the anti-scientific and anti-democratic “concensus” on climate change, I phoned to ask why. I was passed around from extension to extension until I finally got somebody who identified herself as the manager of the press unit, who said the data were deleted because of copyright issues. A few days later the scandal broke.

  11. Pat Frank says:

    We have to be careful with abbreviations here, because UCS is also The Utah Computer Society, and it wouldn’t do to inadvertently defame the innocent.

    In any case, the expertise of the Union of Concerned Scientists (hereinafter UnCnedSci, to spare the Utahians) concerning AGW-science is foretold by the number of physical scientists in its governing positions: none.

    The director of Policy on this organization of scientists, Alden Meyer, has an education perfectly suited to an environmental lobbyist, and completely lacks the science background necessary to rational policy-making on any issue so science-based. Their other policy-maker, Peter Frumhoff, is hardly more qualified to evaluate climate science (see below).

    That said, meet the UnCnedSci leadership:

    Kevin Knobloch, President, “holds a master’s degree in public administration from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, with a focus on natural resource economics and environmental management, and a bachelor’s degree from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, where he concentrated in English and journalism.”

    Dr. Kathleen Rest, Executive Director, “earned her Doctorate in health policy from Boston University and her Masters degree in public administration, with a focus on health services, from the University of Arizona.”

    Dr. Peter Frumhoff, Director of Science & Policy/Chief Scientist and also chief scientist of the UCS Climate Campaign, “holds a Ph.D. in Ecology and an M.A. in Zoology from the University of California, Davis and a B.A. in Psychology from the University of California, San Diego.

    Alden Meyer, Director of Strategy & Policy/DC Office Co-Director, “received his undergraduate degree from Yale in 1975, concentrating in political science and economics. He received a master’s degree in human resource and organization development from American University in 1990.”

    Here’s a list of their experts on, “Global Warming-Science and Impacts.” This list should provide the expertise in physics and physical climatology to ensure a scientifically valid position.

    Dr. Brenda Ekwurzel, Climate Scientist, Assistant Director of Climate Research and Analysis, “holds a Ph.D. in isotope geochemistry from the Department of Earth Sciences at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and conducted post-doctoral research at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, in California.”

    Dr. Peter Frumhoff, Director of Science & Policy/Chief Scientist, we’ve already met him.

    Dr. Todd Sanford Climate Scientist, “received a PhD in physical chemistry from the University of Colorado and a Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry from Purdue University.”

    Erika Spanger-Siegfried, Senior Analyst, Climate & Energy Program, “has a master’s degree in energy and environmental analysis from Boston University and a bachelor’s degree in fisheries biology from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.”

    Jalonne L. White-Newsome, Kendall Science Fellow in Climate Change and Public Health, “holds a master’s degree in environmental engineering from Southern Methodist University and a bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering from Northwestern University.”

    So, not one physicist or climate physicist. We have two physical scientists, or three depending on the content of Erika Spanger-Siegfried’s Master’s degree (the BU program has plenty of bio-options), and an engineer with pretty good degrees.

    But this is not an obvious go-to list of people to validate a stance on the impact of CO2 on climate. All of them except Peter Frumhoff should be directly capable of the basic analysis that would quickly tell them the science supporting AGW rests on a complete neglect of physical error. But either they’ve not done the analysis, or they’re not talking about it.

    The UnCnedSci Board has some worthy scientists, notably Richard Garwin, but he advises UnCnedSci on nuclear weapons, not on climate.

    Of course, the examples of Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, and others is enough to forewarn us that even having a physicist on your staff will not ensure an objective evaluation of the science. Still, the UnCnedSci could have done better, even if only for expertise show-boating.

  12. Hot under the collar says:

    I should think your dog was probably over qualified for the ‘Union of Concerned Scientists’, I presume it is ‘house trained’? : ) Although I suppose dogs are generally known for obedience to their masters which is probably a prerequisite to joining. How embarrassing for the dog – I hope you have apologised.
    Tomorrows headline – Mann Bites Dog?

  13. Wagathon says:

    Hoax, scare tactics, collusion… when does it become fraud?

  14. hro001 says:

    Gary says: July 7, 2012 at 7:21 pm

    As a member of UCS, Kenji ought to request copies of Executive Board meeting minutes.

    If that doesn’t yield the desired results (which experience suggests it may well not), one could always enlist the “services” of Peter Gleick, who seems to have perfected the art obtaining that which he has no damn business acquiring and subsequently distributing to his “trusted” fences ;-)

  15. John Blake says:

    Kentti Linkola.

  16. William Astley says:

    The extreme AGW movement has a significant logical problem and a media message problem. Unaltered data and unbiased analysis does not support the extreme AGW paradigm. Lindzen and others, have unequivalically shown that the planet resists warming due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere by increasing cloud cover in the tropics thereby reflecting more sunlight off in to space, which is called negative feedback. If there is negative feedback as opposed to amplification (positive feedback) a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in less than 1C warming. The IPCC have stated that there goal is to limit the planet’s warming due to atmospheric CO2 increases to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 to 2C. Mission accomplished. A doubling of at atmospheric CO2 will result in less than 1C warming.

    It gets better. CO2 is not poison or a dangerous greenhouse gas. Plant`s eat CO2. Commercial greenhouses pay to inject CO2 into the greenhouse, to increase yield and to reduce growing times. The ideal level of atmospheric CO2 from the standpoint of plants is 1000 ppm to 1200 ppm. Why has the extreme AGW movement remained silent on the fact the increases in the atmospheric Co2 is beneficial to the plants and the biosphere. If increased C O2 results in slightly warming temperatures with most of the warming at high latitudes as the growing season is limited by the number of frost free days, there is not global warming crisis. Increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is beneficial to the biosphere. There are other environmental problems to address. There is no problem with increasing atmospheric CO2.
    It gets better. C3 plants (trees, grains consumed by humans including wheat and rice) loss roughly 50% of the water they absorb due to trans-respiration. When atmospheric CO2 rises, C3 plants reduce the number of stomata on their leaves which reduces the loss of water from their leaves to the atmosphere. This enables the C3 plants live with less water and leaves more water to remain at the plants roots for synergstically beneficial nitrogen affecting bacteria.

    The problem for the extreme AGW supporters is they have called those who question the fundamental science supporting the dangerous warming prediction by the IPCC as “deniers“. If it become evident that the “`deniers“ where correct, the extreme AGW paradigm would be shown to be propaganda as opposed to science.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
    Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument. This is logically fallacious because it relates to the opponent’s personal character, which has nothing to do with the logical merit of the opponent’s argument, whereas mere verbal abuse in the absence of an argument is not ad hominem nor any kind of logical fallacy.[6]

    http://www.johnstonanalytics.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/LindzenChoi2011.235213033.pdf
    On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
    Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2

    1Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, U. S. A. 2Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea (Manuscript received 23 February 2011; revised 22 May 2011; accepted 22 May 2011) © The Korean Meteorological Society and Springer 2011

    Abstract: We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000- 2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) was subject to significant criticisms. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various
    criticisms are taken into account. The present analysis accounts for the 72 day precession period for the ERBE satellite in a more appropriate manner than in the earlier paper. We develop a method to distinguish noise in the outgoing radiation as well as radiation changes that are forcing SST changes from those radiation changes that constitute feedbacks to changes in SST. We demonstrate that our new method does moderately well in distinguishing positive from negative feedbacks and in quantifying negative feedbacks. In contrast, we show that simple regression methods used by several existing papers generally exaggerate positive feedbacks and even show positive feedbacks when actual feedbacks are negative. We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the
    tropics alone – though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. The …

    …The heart of the global warming issue is so-called greenhouse warming. This refers to the fact that the earth balances the heat received from the sun (mostly in the visible spectrum) by radiating in the infrared portion of the spectrum back to space. Gases that are relatively transparent to visible light but strongly absorbent in the infrared (greenhouse gases) interfere with the cooling of the planet, forcing it to become warmer in order to emit sufficient infrared radiation to balance the net incoming sunlight (Lindzen, 1999). By net incoming sunlight, we mean that portion of the sun’s radiation that is not reflected back to space by clouds, aerosols and the earth’s surface. CO2, a relatively minor greenhouse gas, has increased significantly since the beginning of the industrial age from about 280 ppmv to about 390 ppmv, presumably due mostly to man’s emissions. This is the focus of current concerns. However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1oC (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of well mixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007). This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5oC to 5oC and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling. Clouds also change so that their visible reflectivity decreases, causing increased solar absorption and warming of the earth. Cloud feedbacks are still considered to be highly uncertain (IPCC, 2007), but the fact that these feedbacks are strongly positive in most models is considered to be an indication that the result is basically correct. Methodologically, this is unsatisfactory. Ideally, one would seek an observational test of the issue. Here we suggest that it may be possible to test the issue with existing data from satellites.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030509084556.htm

    Greenhouse Gas Might Green Up The Desert; Weizmann Institute Study Suggests That Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Might Cause Forests To Spread Into Dry Environments

    The Weizmann team found, to its surprise, that the Yatir forest is a substantial “sink” (CO2-absorbing site): its absorbing efficiency is similar to that of many of its counterparts in more fertile lands. These results were unexpected since forests in dry regions are considered to develop very slowly, if at all, and thus are not expected to soak up much carbon dioxide (the more rapidly the forest develops the more carbon dioxide it needs, since carbon dioxide drives the production of sugars). However, the Yatir forest is growing at a relatively quick pace, and is even expanding further into the desert.

    Plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, which leads to the production of sugars. But to obtain it, they must open pores in their leaves and consequently lose large quantities of water to evaporation. The plant must decide which it needs more: water or carbon dioxide. Yakir suggests that the 30 percent increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution eases the plant’s dilemma. Under such conditions, the plant doesn’t have to fully open the pores for carbon dioxide to seep in – a relatively small opening is sufficient. Consequently, less water escapes the plant’s pores. This efficient water preservation technique keeps moisture in the ground, allowing forests to grow in areas that previously were too dry.

    It gets better. Slightly warmer temperatures in the tropics results in increased rainfall which changes the Sahara desert into a productive grasslands, savanna.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html
    This desert-shrinking trend is supported by climate models, which predict a return to conditions that turned the Sahara into a lush savanna some 12,000 years ago.

    Green Shoots
    The green shoots of recovery are showing up on satellite images of regions including the Sahel, a semi-desert zone bordering the Sahara to the south that stretches some 2,400 miles (3,860 kilometers).

  17. Don says:

    As I commented on a related thread recently:

    “And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil.” John 3:19 KJV

    This ought to be particularly convicting for the said Texas Tech professor, who represents herself as an evangelical Christian. Time to come clean, sister! WWJD?

  18. noaaprogrammer says:

    gerrydorrian66 says:
    July 7, 2012 at 8:04 pm
    “Shortly before Climategate became public, I heard from an American journalist that the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit had been deleting data. ”

    In the name of transparency, this American journalist was … ?

  19. Mike Jowsey says:

    Yes, Don! (@9:39). I like it! Them’s what lives in the caves with their Precious, we’s don’t like the torch, no no no! We hates’s the torch. The torch burns us. Must kill the torch bearers!

    (Apologies to J.R.Tolkein)

  20. Mike says:

    If the Sahara and Sahel greens up substantially, this will lead to a decline in dust sweeping across the tropical Atlantic in early and mid-summer resulting in perhaps increasing the Cape Verde portion of the hurricane season with more long running storms in the earlier part of the season (June, July). Just a long term concern.

  21. davesix says:

    Rational Optimist on rising CO2 and Plant adaptation and substitution: http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/two-rival-kinds-of-plants-and-their-future.aspx

    “Can rice match maize’s yield?”

  22. Steve Tabor says:

    William Astley says:
    July 7, 2012 at 9:38 pm
    “Greenhouse Gas Might Green Up The Desert; Weizmann Institute Study Suggests That Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Might Cause Forests To Spread Into Dry Environments”

    An enviro journal has a different take on this issue:
    “… researchers have found that savanna wildfires could be heavily influenced by factors such as climate change, road construction and fire-prevention measures. Less rainfall can result in an uptick in fires that can transform a forest into a savanna, just as breaking up the landscape through road construction and fire control disrupt natural blazes and allow a forest to sprout where there once was a savanna. Because of these factors, large stretches of South American and African forest and savanna could degenerate into chaotic mutual encroachment.”
    http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-change-brings-savanna-and-forest-into-battle-4103

    We don’t need that! Heaven forbid that anything would “degenerate into chaotic mutual encroachment”!

  23. bwdave says:

    Isn’t the precautionary principle simply “fear”, itself?

  24. kim says:

    The Union of Concerned Activists is concerned because the subject of their activism is taking an awful beating by Mother Nature, Goddess Gaia, and Hoi Hot Polloi. He may be more up to speed now, but when I first ran across Aaron Huertas a while back in a discussion on a non climate blog, he was apparently ignorant, but a fast learner. Arguments which foxed him at first were the subject of a more informed response later, presumably after consultation with more knowledgable confreres. He’s a communicator, once as ignorant of the science as Joshua still is.
    ================

  25. Bill Tuttle says:

    Some of these, recently obtained from Texas A&M University, provide one explanation for this reversal.

    No reversal here, merely the Usual Suspects exercising their Usual Double Standard.

    When Bradley Manning leaked classified DoS documents, they rejoiced.

    When “Harry” leaked publicly-funded documents, they screeched.

  26. Contrari says:

    “Gary says: As a member of UCS, Kenji ought to request copies of Executive Board meeting minutes.”

    But then UCS could claim: “The dog ate the papers!”

  27. Peter Miller says:

    The Global Warming/Climate Change Industry.

    Further proof that if:

    It acts like a cult
    It looks like a cult
    Its leaders are disingenuous, media manipulative, tolerate no criticism or debate, cavalier with the facts and concerned only with their own self-aggrandizement and personal wealth, then:

    It’s a cult – the CAGW Cult.

    The point that really sticks in my craw is why, if it is non-strategic data and information paid for by the taxpayer, should there be any reason for not releasing this data and information to the taxpayer when requested. Unless, of course, there is fraudulent manipulation involved, which the holder obviously does not want exposed.

    But that is the point: CAGW theory = Fraudulent manipulation of data and information.

    I believe we constantly need to stress the difference between AGW and CAGW – alarmists like to muddle them together to confuse the general public. AGW is real, but it is only a very minor factor impacting on climate, which has been mostly beneficial to mankind. While CAGW is best left to poorly written, poorly conceived, science fiction novels like those written by crackpot cult leader L Ron Hubbard.

  28. Eric H. says:

    UCS is running an ad on WUWT, awesome!

  29. Julian Flood says:

    Re: Pat Frank July 7, 2012 at 8:53 pm

    Perhaps you are too hard on the UCS. Miss Spanger-Siegfried may well be qualified to examine what is really going on. If the Gaia temperature stabilising feedback is biological (via aerosol management by stressed plankton etc and hence albedo control), she is qualified to check if pollution is damaging that feedback and causing the warming since 1850. I’m not saying she is qualified, but she could be. Whether she would dream of using that qualification in a meaningful way is another matter.

    JF

  30. polistra says:

    I’m not sure it’s wise to push for more legally required transparency. “Open meetings laws” and similar Good Government efforts never lead to more knowledge by the public; they just make the gov’t develop new methods of keeping its secrets, which are more effective than the old methods.

    It’s better to rely on illegitimate leaks, which can’t be worked around.

  31. Pat Frank says: July 7, 2012 at 8:53 pm

    We have to be careful with abbreviations here, because UCS is also The Utah Computer Society… the Union of Concerned Scientists (hereinafter UnCnedSci, to spare the Utahians)

    why not call them UnCSci which you can pronounce like angst, angst-y, which seems to describe them well.

    “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing” – Shakespeare’s Macbeth

  32. Leo Morgan says:

    I recommend you delete the word ‘Liberal’ from the title of your upcoming book.
    You will increase your sales among those who most need to read it.
    Attack the issues not the people, and you win the people over.

  33. Brian H says:

    Wagathon says:
    July 7, 2012 at 9:06 pm

    Hoax, scare tactics, collusion… when does it become fraud?

    When the perps benefit financially from their deceptions.

    Seriously. YCLIU

  34. Duncan says:

    gerrydorrian66 says:
    July 7, 2012 at 8:04 pm
    Shortly before Climategate became public, I heard from an American journalist that the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit had been deleting data.

    Thats very interesting because if true it would suggest prior knowledge of the release and that would suggest that they knew it was a leak all along and not a hack.

  35. Anthony,

    Could my responding favorably to your blog on my other blog be the reason I was black-listed as a ‘spammer?’ I know that might be a stretch.

    But, the final attack came on soon after I posted a comment on your site. As if I had crossed their ‘Rubicon.’

    Regards,

    Ghost.

  36. Brian H says:

    Wagathon says:
    July 7, 2012 at 9:06 pm

    Hoax, scare tactics, collusion… when does it become fraud?

    When the perps benefit financially from their deceptions.

    Seriously. YCLIU

    P.S. addendum (taking advantage of the robo-filter on the f-word). You might like to look at the requirements for prosecution under RICO, too. I think all are met, in full.

  37. Reblogged this on thewordpressghost and commented:
    Everyone,

    This is chilling.

    Activists posing as professionals are attacking other professionals.

    It would seem to me that they are using their positions (positions of trust) to destroy their opposition.

    Not what I would call ‘freedom.’

    Would you call this freedom?

    Ghost.

  38. Brian H says:

    Duncan says:
    July 8, 2012 at 3:29 am

    gerrydorrian66 says:
    July 7, 2012 at 8:04 pm
    Shortly before Climategate became public, I heard from an American journalist that the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit had been deleting data.

    Thats very interesting because if true it would suggest prior knowledge of the release and that would suggest that they knew it was a leak all along and not a hack.

    Not just email data. See this comment elsewhere, by Dr. Tim Ball (student of Dr. Lamb, founder of the CRU): http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/24/hh-lamb-climate-present-past-future-vol-2-in-review-part-i/#comment-1017085

    There is even less data now than when Lamb stepped down. Records have been abandoned, expurgated, modified and raw data lost or modified without explanation. As a result, computer models, that became the centre of climatology, are built on virtually nothing. I watched this ascendancy and it has been an unmitigated disaster. Lamb was right in his original objective and his wider understanding to climatology.

  39. I Am Digitap says:

    Reducing CO2 significantly slows growth of ALL plant life hence ALL foodstuffs, eventually.

    Since these ecofraud people are affecting the price of food, anyone at all should be allowed to file as part of a class action suit to make many of these people pay the piper for their fraudulent doings.

  40. I Am Digitap says:

    This is what happens when the candidate for president of the United States sells his soul to get even for the election he lost: widespread ‘burn the system down’ criminopathy
    It’s past creepy or spooky it’s crime on huge scales. Utterly transparent, not even hiding that it’s crime: simply colluding together as activist government employees.

  41. tckev says:

    The CAGW true believers are not content with influencing governments, now they are to try some thought-police methods – http://www.springerlink.com/content/b0072m7777772k7r/fulltext.html
    Echos of Orwell’s 1984 – “Truth is the new hate speak”

  42. papiertigre says:

    “holds a Ph.D. in Ecology and an M.A. in Zoology from the University of California, Davis and a B.A. in Psychology from the University of California, San Diego.”

    Hysterical. I nearly coughed a lung out when I read “Ph.D. in Ecology”. His resume reads like a spit take.

  43. Ian W says:

    Mike says:
    July 7, 2012 at 10:18 pm

    If the Sahara and Sahel greens up substantially, this will lead to a decline in dust sweeping across the tropical Atlantic in early and mid-summer resulting in perhaps increasing the Cape Verde portion of the hurricane season with more long running storms in the earlier part of the season (June, July). Just a long term concern.

    You are looking at the ‘system’ in a very simple way. If “ the Sahara and Sahel greens up substantially” then the dust may reduce but the humidity of the air will increase due to the transpiration of plants which is more water than expected. A mature tree can transpire more than 100kg of water an hour. This means that instead of hot dry air coming off the coast of Africa the air will be humid; indeed convective storms could be expected to form over the ‘greening Sahel’ carrying heat to the tropopause and raising the albedo over the Sahel and the seas to the West of the African coast. This would reduce the heat energy available for hurricanes from the lowered SST.

  44. DEEBEE says:

    Anthny, I think you are unecessarily holding your dog back. If you let him loose in socilogy or climatology he should be able to produce better scholarly output then the current, just with his breakfast.

  45. theBuckWheat says:

    A liberal (er, now “progressive”) never advocates anything or supports any cause unless it is to further a bigger goal. When complaining about the lack of transparency served the liberal end goal of increasing government and destroying our prosperity, then transparency was a vital issue to address. When funding and collusion of leftist causes would be put at risk by the wrong kind of transparency, then it became a bad thing to be opposed.

    Memo to Congress: start to balance the budget by defunding every liberal government program.

  46. Fred says:

    A few facts on the Washington Examiner, and its major circulation strategy – be given away free in the dingy, dirty old DC subway system.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Examiner

  47. Manfred says:

    What is the threshold in the US to classify such behviour as a conspiracy against the American people ?

  48. DirkH says:

    Fred says:
    July 8, 2012 at 5:23 am
    “A few facts on the Washington Examiner, and its major circulation strategy – be given away free in the dingy, dirty old DC subway system.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Examiner

    Fred, did you know that copies of WUWT are given away for free to anyone riding a bus carrying an internet capable mobile phone? or to anyone else, for that matter?

    Do you feel dirty now?

  49. DirkH says:

    Leo Morgan says:
    July 8, 2012 at 3:11 am
    “I recommend you delete the word ‘Liberal’ from the title of your upcoming book.
    You will increase your sales among those who most need to read it.
    Attack the issues not the people, and you win the people over.”

    You are assuming that Liberals think rationally. Is there evidence for this?

  50. Fred says:

    Honesty and transparency. . . That’s for little people.

    Climate Scientists have a moral obligation to lie, cheat, obfuscate and pretend because they know, they KNOW they are so smart and so correct, that their work is so critical to saving humanity.

    Because they are smart, progressive environmentalists who cannot be wrong.

  51. Dave says:

    Anthony,
    Perhaps you should consider setting up a profile for Kenji on LinkedIn. With his credentials as exemplified by his membership in the UCS, perhaps he could bring another revenue stream to your family.

  52. Tim Clark says:

    cohenite says:
    July 8, 2012 at 1:51 am
    Sue them:
    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/news-legal-action-against-agw/#comment-1080894

    In the middle of that thread is one of the funniest strings of comments regarding angry goats in the pac nw

    July 6, 2012 at 2:59 pm ·
    Global Warming makes goats get angry yep thats right, due to a deep snowpack in JULY I MIGHT ADD the goats are pissed off and rightly so.
    If it was not for global warming we would not have so much snow and the goats would return to their more friendly state of mind.
    The damage caused by CO2 is untold…………..
    http://iceagenow.info/2012/07/aggressive-goats-force-closure-olympic-national-forest-trail/

  53. Dave says:

    I wonder if Newt Gingrich is aware of Katherine Hayhoe’s duplicitous behavior?

  54. Gail Combs says:

    gerrydorrian66 says:
    July 7, 2012 at 8:04 pm
    “Shortly before Climategate became public, I heard from an American journalist that the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit had been deleting data…..

    I was passed around from extension to extension until I finally got somebody who identified herself as the manager of the press unit, who said the data were deleted because of copyright issues. A few days later the scandal broke.
    _______________________________

    As I recall the Climategate information first went to news Journalists but I can not find the reference.

    I did find this very interesting information.

    …In an exclusive interview, Jones told TGIF, “It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails.”

    “Have you alerted police”

    “Not yet. We were not aware of what had been taken.”

    “Jones says he was first tipped off to the security breach by colleagues at the website RealClimate.

    “Real Climate were given information, but took it down off their site and told me they would send it across to me. They didn’t do that. I only found out it had been released five minutes ago.”
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/

    So it looks like the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit was aware of the data information breach and the first thing they did was to DELETE THE DATA!

    This is not really surprising given that Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws….

    To put this in context for any new-comers, these are the e-mails referring to circumventing FoI. The listing is from Bishop Hill’s compendium of CRU email issues – link
    (The numbers refer to climategate #1 e-mails but link no longer works)

    * Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request. (1212063122)

    * Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be “hiding behind them”.(1106338806)

    * Santer complaining about FoI requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the kind of people the scientists were dealing with they became very supportive. Says the VC [vice chancellor] knows what is going on (in one case).(1228330629)

    * Jones says he’s found a way around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland.(1210367056)

    * Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)

    * Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. Also discuss AR4 draft. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with sceptics.(1107454306)

  55. Jean Parisot says:

    The proper term to address the UCS is Fellow Travelers.

  56. higley7 says:

    They follow in the foot steps of our Undocumented Worker-in-Chief. HIs first Executive Order was to seal and hide all of his personal information and records. Call him, Mr. Transparency!

    What a role model. No wonder those around him, like Holder, tend to flout the law at every turn. “Daddy does it all the time!”

  57. Jean Parisot says:

    Dingy, dirty subway … I thought thats what the greens want us to ride.

  58. pyromancer76 says:

    I too fear the use of the word “liberal” in Christopher Horner’s title is giving away a precious word to “leftists”, meaning all those, no matter how they label themselves today, who prefer authoritarian practices, a government-by-themselves (elites) in control, with mind, thought, research, and the police function obeying their dictates. The “scientific method” is not only abandoned, but demonized. To call these people “liberal” is a travesty. Those who find themselves more “conservative” or “libertarian” (American party system) should not permit the misuse and emotional abuse of “liberal”.

    Our ancestors fought an extremely hard-won battle mostly within Western societies/civilization that permitted the possibility of “liberal” ideas and practices according to this definition: “associated with ideals of individual freedom, greater intellectual liberty, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives, such as the U.S. Constitution.”

    At the same time, Christopher Horner is that kind of investigative journalist/researcher/scientist who is providing information leading to “greater intellectual liberty” that can help us identify those institutions we want to continue compared to those we choose to assign to the “lost-to-authoritarian” or mind-control dustbin. Transparency and accountability are fundamental.

    As always, gratitude to Anthony and WUWT.

  59. Gail Combs says:

    Peter Miller says:
    July 8, 2012 at 12:39 am
    ….. I believe we constantly need to stress the difference between AGW and CAGW – alarmists like to muddle them together to confuse the general public. AGW is real, but it is only a very minor factor impacting on climate, which has been mostly beneficial to mankind. While CAGW is best left to poorly written, poorly conceived, science fiction novels like those written by crackpot cult leader L Ron Hubbard.
    ___________________
    L. Ron Hubbard was no crackpot, he was a CROOK. As science fiction author, L. Sprague deCamp said ” I knew L. Ron when he was a small time crook.”

    Seems the CAGW alarmists are following in L. Ron’s footsteps.

    You don’t get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion.- L. Ron Hubbard (Response to a question from the audience during a meeting of the Eastern Science Fiction Association on (7 November 1948), as quoted in a 1994 affidavit by Sam Moskowitz.) http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/L._Ron_Hubbard

  60. James Ard says:

    Horner is in the top three of the real heros who are going to finally put a stake in the heart of this fraud. You can guess the other two.

  61. Wagathon says:

    If not for what the spectre of global warming alarmism has forced upon our attention we might have suffered the evil that public-funded education has become. Now we can do something about it. That is the gift of this hoax.

  62. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    @William Astley

    ” Cloud feedbacks are still considered to be highly uncertain (IPCC, 2007), but the fact that these feedbacks are strongly positive in most models is considered to be an indication that the result is basically correct.”

    It occurred to me this morning that the reason the feedbacks are reported to be ‘highly uncertain’ are that they are known, feared and therefore not reported. From a Warmist’s perspective, the last thing the AGW models need is a Big Negative Feedback (BNF). It would be more correct to say that the “feedbacks are highly uncertain and will remain that way until such time as the funding stops pouring into the public trough.”

    It should be fairly easy to show, in spite of all the guessed-value variables in the models, that when BNF’s are incorporated, the models predict the current stasis/cooling (at least the 100 year stasis in New Zealand and the slow cooling over the past 30 years in N America).

    BNF remains the last big variable which is already known in the literature but not incorporated into the models. I can’t see it being incorporated by those with a vested interest in climate alarmism.

  63. The Union of Concerned Socialists, citizens and scientists for environmental solutions. Just try to find out from the UCS how many of the former and latter make up their membership. Good luck.

    For a minimum donation of $5, anyone can become a member.

    What else is there to say about the UCS?

  64. Gail Combs says:

    Leo Morgan says:
    July 8, 2012 at 3:11 am

    I recommend you delete the word ‘Liberal’ from the title of your upcoming book.
    You will increase your sales among those who most need to read it.
    Attack the issues not the people, and you win the people over.
    _____________________________
    I certainly agree with that. CAGW should not be a liberal/conservative issue. The Political Activists are the ones who are making it a right vs left issue so they can use the “herd mentality”. Do not play into their hands.

  65. Gail Combs says:

    papiertigre says:
    July 8, 2012 at 4:19 am

    “holds a Ph.D. in Ecology and an M.A. in Zoology from the University of California, Davis and a B.A. in Psychology from the University of California, San Diego.”

    Hysterical. I nearly coughed a lung out when I read “Ph.D. in Ecology”. His resume reads like a spit take.
    ____________________________
    I noticed many of the Universities named were from either The Peoples Republic of Taxechusetts, The Peoples Republic of Kalifornia or the newest addition (Thanks to John Denver no doubt) Colorado.

  66. kramer says:

    Speaking of climategate, isn’t it about time that we get some kind of decision on Mann’s UVA emails?

  67. David Ball says:

    When asked if I am a “conspiracy theorist” by warm-mongers, I respond by saying I prefer the term “systemic bias theorist”.

  68. Gail Combs says:

    Leo Morgan says:
    July 8, 2012 at 3:11 am
    “I recommend you delete the word ‘Liberal’ from the title of your upcoming book.
    You will increase your sales among those who most need to read it.
    Attack the issues not the people, and you win the people over.”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    DirkH says:
    July 8, 2012 at 6:00 am

    You are assuming that Liberals think rationally. Is there evidence for this?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Yes, Willis Eschenbach is an example and so is Rosa Koire, a classic “Liberal” lady who wrote Behind the Green Mask and runs the blog Democrats Against Agenda 21

    Do not make the mistake of attributing the nasty greedy cunning attributes of the leaders of a movement to the rank and file members. Many liberals and conservatives are actually on the same side but the Media works very hard to convince them otherwise as do the leaders. – Divide and Conquer is the name of the game.

    During the 20’s it was Lenin’s ‘Innocents’ Clubs’: Radicals were led believed they were advancing socialist humanism.
    The ‘Innocents’ Clubs’

    …During the 1920’s and most of the 1930’s Münzenberg played a leading role in the Comintern, Lenin’s front for world-wide co-ordination of the left under Russian control. Under Münzenberg’s direction, hundreds of groups, committees and publications cynically used and manipulated the devout radicals of the West….Most of this army of workers in what Münzenberg called ‘Innocents’ Clubs’ had no idea they were working for Stalin. They were led to believe that they were advancing the cause of a sort of socialist humanism. The descendents of the ‘Innocents’ Clubs’ are still hard at work in our universities and colleges. Every year a new cohort of impressionable students join groups like the Anti-Nazi League believing them to be benign opponents of oppression…

    Most liberals are genuinely concerned about other people and therefore they can be engaged in conversation and lead around to looking at new information. I have done so many many times. Conservative Christians are the same. One just has to be careful about hitting the “Hot Topic” button too soon. However if you have already established yourself as a reasonable person in their mind they will listen to your new information.

  69. eyesonu says:

    “The collusion of the climate crowd”

    Many thanks to Christopher C. Horner and the American Tradition Institute for their efforts. This is a very well written article.

    As most of the long term followers of WUWT and Climategate already know about the CAGW scam. It is important to provide reviews and summaries from time to time as more newcomers to the issue haven’t seen the in-depth discussions that have been covered since the release of Climategate emails and the following cover-ups. The scam has been exposed and the efforts of the players to put a cover-up on it is the most damning. A lot of these players were previously in the closet but had to come out to try to keep the scam alive. That has been the greatest revelation.

    Those such as Watts, McIntyre, and too many others to begin to name deserve recognition and honors.

    The truth is out and no amount of lies and spin will put it back in the bottle. Justice needs to be applied and may be swift if and when it begins. The CAGW scam has destroyed trust in science, academia, governments, EPA, NASA, the media, the courts, etc, etc. The fact that it ever got off the ground is astounding. That it became so widespread even more so. The cover-up and attempts at it’s defense is something that no word can describe. It is the worst case of racketeering and fraud in recent history. Well … at least equal to some politicians, but they are on the bandwagon also.

    The good side to it all is that many will no longer trust the media, the government, academics, etc. Hopefully critical thinking may arise from the ashes, I hope.

  70. Bill Tuttle says:

    Gail Combs says:
    July 8, 2012 at 8:40 am
    One just has to be careful about hitting the “Hot Topic” button too soon. However if you have already established yourself as a reasonable person in their mind they will listen to your new information.

    I’ve learned through long experience that there are some people you *can’t* hit the “Hot Topic” button with — but that button may not be the one you thought it would be.

    Which is probably the reason conversations at my barbecues are limited to technical discussions on pondscaping, pisciculture, and “Why Lite Beer Shouldn’t Be Called Beer”…

  71. Bill Tuttle says:

    pyromancer76 says:
    July 8, 2012 at 7:33 am
    Those who find themselves more “conservative” or “libertarian” (American party system) should not permit the misuse and emotional abuse of “liberal”.

    Unfortunately, “liberal” was co-opted by the radical Left long, long ago. Ironic that they now prefer to be called “progressives,” which was the fraternal socialistic (i.e., politically correct) term of choice in the USSR used to describe “useful idiots.”

  72. Chuck says:

    On its face, this should have been welcomed by the Left, which often lays claim to the “transparency” mantle.

    Ah ha ha ha ha ha! I needed a good laugh to get my day started. The modus operandi of the modern left is the antithesis of transparency.

    It is instead causing great angst.

    What else is new? Gee, we haven’t seen any examples of this from the left in the last decade or two. /sarc

    The modern left would have to return to the rock the crawled out from under if they were ever transparent about what they do or want to do.

  73. Pat Frank says:

    Julian I’m willing to give Ms. Spanger-Siegfried the benefit of the doubt, as originally noted (“or three depending on the content of Erika Spanger-Siegfried’s Master’s degree”). Still, whichever is the case, she’s been as silent as the rest.

    Lucy, agreed — your abbreviation is better, with its pronunciation algorithmic possibilities. :-)

  74. coconutdog says:

    Has your dog got a credit card?

  75. Gunga Din says:

    Bill Tuttle says:
    July 8, 2012 at 9:52 am
    pyromancer76 says:
    July 8, 2012 at 7:33 am
    Those who find themselves more “conservative” or “libertarian” (American party system) should not permit the misuse and emotional abuse of “liberal”.
    =====
    Unfortunately, “liberal” was co-opted by the radical Left long, long ago. Ironic that they now prefer to be called “progressives,” which was the fraternal socialistic (i.e., politically correct) term of choice in the USSR used to describe “useful idiots.”
    ====================================================
    I remember when the word “gay” had nothing to do with homosexuality. I just meant something along the lines of “festive”, “carefree”, “celebratory”. Today those old meanings only hold true in Christmas carols and old movies.
    The words “liberal” and “conserative” have suffered the same fate. What used to be the Democrate Party has changed the meaning of “liberal” (for liberty) into the opposite by the radical left which now controls it.
    Watch the movie “1776” sometime. There’s a song that illustrates this. The “conservatives” are the ones who oppose the Declaration of Indepenace.

  76. Doug in Seattle says:

    The the faithful there is no fraud, only elimination of false data and correction of bad data.

  77. The name “Union of Concerned Scientists” is misleading. This is what the UCS really is:

    “UCS members are people from all walks of life: parents and businesspeople, biologists and physicists, teachers and students.”

    The quote is from the “About Us” section at their web site. Here is the link to it:

    http://www.ucsusa.org/about/

    To call themselves a union of “scientists” is misleading to the public. They are not all scientists. There has to be laws that protect people from this type of false impression, this dishonesty.

  78. Opps, and I forgot to say, and they’re dogs too. ;-)

  79. coconutdog says:
    July 8, 2012 at 12:44 pm

    Has your dog got a credit card?

    And did he get a house in the housing boom? ;^)

  80. Bill Tuttle says:

    Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    July 8, 2012 at 1:55 pm
    The name “Union of Concerned Scientists” is misleading. This is what the UCS really is: “UCS members are people from all walks of life: parents and businesspeople, biologists and physicists, teachers and students.”

    What a surprise. I was a member of the National Maritime Union from ’73 to ’76 and the closest I ever got to water was washing windows on the outside of high-rise office buildings.

  81. Bob Kutz says:

    I’m sorry, but when Professors at public universities are having their PR consulting firm bill paid by policy advocate groups someone needs to go to prison. There is no way that is not corruption. That a scientist would have a PR consulting firm on retainer is patently ridiculous enough. That the UCS is operating as a lobbying agency is probably illegal.

    A scientist with an agenda requiring a PR firm and the need to have said PR firm’s bill be paid by an advocate? The scientist needs to surrender their credentials, and the person or persons holding the purse strings need to go to prison. They are buying policy by corruption of science.

    And yes, I mean prison.

  82. Sean says:

    Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    July 8, 2012 at 1:55 pm
    The name “Union of Concerned Scientists” is misleading. There has to be laws that protect people from this type of false impression, this dishonesty.

    ————————————-

    The thing is that anyone can call themselves a scientist, even people like Mann who are clearly just activists with science educations. The word has no real meaning in the sense of both credentials and expected behaviors.

  83. nomad says:

    Most “reporters” have ties to or are direct “intelligence” assets.
    Rothschild’s private bank anxiously awaits all of the carbon taxes which are starting to roll in and will continue to roll in for this entire “century of change”. CO2 and the climate change fairy tale will be kept alive, by the same people who’ve kept things like the Disney fairy tales alive for a century. It doesn’t matter how much evidence you bring forth that it’s a fraud, a lie, a crime. The end was scripted a long, long time ago and only removal of those at the very, very top of the pyramid might change the ending.

  84. monarch says:

    Note the spooky logo, the Monarch butterfly (mind-controlled useful slaves) over the globe. Anyone into symbolism would have a field day with this one.

Comments are closed.