Must see video – Climategate spoof from Minnesotans for Global Warming

Michelle Malkin’s Hotair has the video up.
almost 30000 views thus far.

Another brilliant video by m4gw, as for the blue thingy I suspect that is an ox named Babe

Better to base it off the movie Terminator:
Listen. Understand. That
[Al Gore] is out there. It
can’t be reasoned with, it can’t
be bargained with…it doesn’t
feel pity of remorse or fear…
and it absolutely will not stop.
Ever. Until [fill in how you wish].
I think people are all too glib over this CRU thing.
This is not over. No tide has turned. There is no “turning point.” This is not a rational game. They will never quit. Never. They are right, because they are. That’s how the Left elite and MSM work. You sadly misread history if you think a few minuscule facts are going to get in their way.
You can read their elitism. Do you remember the “meaning of the word “is” is?” Caught red handed? They are audacious. You think the game ends when the clock reads 00:00. To them, that’s when they decide what the real score should have been. And people keep voting for them, so why shouldn’t they?
The Left has been trying to nationalize health care for over 50 years. They lose votes, but come back, again and again until they get this piece, that piece, all of you.
They are still running the game, meeting in Copenhagen, regulating CO2, thwarting new power plants, dreaming up new taxes, creating carbon allowances, suggesting population “control”.
Remember:
“Freedom is always just one generation away from extinction.” – Ronald Reagan

This might not be the best place to post this, but I stumbled upon this excellent comment by an Anonymous poster over at the accuweather blog.
I shoudl be a post all on it’s own:
Anonymous:
Let’s see what I would believe more?
A few E-mails taking out of context or over 1000 peer reviewed articles published in respected journals?
Of course! The E-mails because a few of them support my sceptically view.
We have discussed this before on this site but let us go over it again because it is important and the e-mails make a few things clear.
First, there is not a single piece of empirical evidence that CO2 drives temperature trends. The best that the warmers could do is imply that there is a correlation between the two. Their problem is the fact that correlation is not proof of causation and that the correlation is very weak over the decadal time scale. That means that the warmers have to scramble to explain why we had 30 years of cooling just after CO2 emissions exploded and why we have not seen general warming for more than a decade.
For may claim of the recent lack of warming I cite Kevin Trenberth, who states in one of the e-mails, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.” Note the joke? It can’t be the theory that is wrong; it must be the data because it does not fit the theory.
Second, the ice core data clearly shows that it is the change in temperature than has come first and that CO2 followed 800 to 1000 years later. That makes CO2 the effect, not the cause. While the warmers admit that is the way things work for the first 800 to 1000 years they claim that after it is CO2 that is the driver. Of course, they have no credible evidence for this claim and no rational person would accept it without such evidence.
Second, we already discussed the Wegman report and testimony in front of Congress. The committee found that the papers on which much of the AGW claims were based came from a small group of around 40 people that published them without independent review. Being a gentleman, Wegman did not accuse the reviewers of academic fraud so he simply concluded that they were not very competent and did not understand statistical techniques. Had they been competent, the reviewers would have made the statistical errors that McIntyre and McKitrick found.
Let me note that I do not buy into the Wegman explanation because it is clear from the e-mails that the author and reviewers knew that the method was flawed and that the paper’s conclusions were created by tricks.
As my supporting evidence I include the e-mail from Dr. Phil Jones, the chief fraud who claims that he had to destroy the global temperature data set because he did not have sufficient filing cabinets. Jones writes, “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” While Jones likes to pretend that his use of the word ‘trick’ was unfortunate and can’t recall things exactly, the leaked code tells us what the trick is. The programmer writes:
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
What this means is what M&M identified early in the game; Mann, Bradley, and Hughes hid the denro divergence by splicing on the Jones ‘adjusted’ temperature, which is a reconstitution from raw data that has not been reviewed by anyone other than Jones and a handful of insiders.
The Wegman report went on and noted that, “In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction, we found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.” This is important to those that claim that many peer reviewed studies show evidence of warming because Wegman goes on to point out that, “there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent.”
The e-mails clearly support the Wegman conclusion because we read about selecting appropriate reviewers who know what to say without prompting, and about getting editors fired for allowing the publication of papers that the group did not like. (The e-mails mention trying to get von Storch and James Saiers fired.) The corruption of the journal review process is a serious issue for scientists, who expect everything to be above board and transparent.
Another issue is the use of positions to keep legitimate papers from being considered by the IPCC, “even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” That makes you claims very hollow. If you have a small group of well paid insiders keep writing papers that are reviewed by others in the group and if that group puts pressure on journals to stop papers from being accepted and keeps legitimate papers from being included in the IPCC assessment reports you would not expect many papers to get published or considered by the IPCC.
Of course, there are thousands of papers that actually falsify the AGW hypothesis, ranging from some that show that ice core data indicates that CO2 changes lag the change in temperature trends by around 800 to 1000 years to papers that show that there is a much better link over all time periods between solar activity and temperature than CO2 and temperature.
What is interesting to note is that after all of the billions spent the AGW community has yet to produce a single paper that indicates that temperature change is driven by changes in CO2 concentrations. This entire debate is only about correlations and computer models, neither of which can prove anything.

Two stone age men following a mammoth herd into a valley find that the valley is no longer blocked by a wall of ice.
Hunter 1: Where’s it gone, all that ice?
Hunter 2: It’s melted of course. Haven’t you ever heard of Global Warming?
Hunter 1: But the mammoths are all getting away. We’ve got to do something about it.
Hunter 2: Don’t worry, there’s a big pow-wow next month. It’ll all be taken care of.
Hunter 1: How are they going to do that?
Hunter 2: Everybody gives half of their hunting catch to the medicine men from now on and they will make the ice come back.
Hunter 1: How will they manage that?
Hunter 2: Who knows? But they’re the experts. You don’t expect them to reveal their secrets to the likes of you and me do you?
The part of Hunter 1 is played by the general public.
The part of Hunter 2 is played by Al Gore
You know who the medicine men are.

Expose the code and bust the Anti-Trust Climate Team
Busted not Robust!
Shiny
Edward

Rush played the song (at least part of it) on his show just now (9:17 a.m. PST) as part of his opening monologue. Great stuff! A few million more now are aware.

Philemon (17:13:32) :
What I want to know is what’s that blue thing with the weird eyes and the horns?
I believe the blue thing is an old school feminine hygiene device [snip]

This will take off not just because the video is funny, but because it works so well as a song by itself (which no doubt helped get it into Rush’s show today). One of these days I’ll get sick of singing “hide the decline (hide the decline)” to myself, but I don’t think that will happen until about 2013.
Hat tip to the guys who made the “Hitler vs. AGW” video too. Smaller audience, but I was laughing so hard my wife was wondering if I’d gone nuts.

You know what is next, don’t you? The Downfall bunker scene with Hitler railing against whoever leaked the documents. Come on, you know there is someone out there adding subtitles to that scene right now…
[Already been done: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VRBWLpYCPY ~dbs, mod.]

to the tune of What Shall We Do with a Drunken Sailor?
What Shall We Do?
How shall we deal with egregious errors?
How can spread more alarmist terrors?
What could we fake to create a scare as
good as global warming?
Soon your power must be dearer;
Armageddon is much nearer;
evidence, we say, is clearer
for that global warming.
Now it seems the weather’s cooling;
numbers drop of those we’re fooling;
people whom we should be ruling
must fear global warming.
Dr Jones is now quite shaken,
feeling that he’s cooked his bacon;
maybe he was just mistaken
over global warming.
What shall we do with the missing data?
How shall we hide all the graphs’ stigmata?
How shall we keep all our fees pro rata
while we fake world warming?
Oh, dear, no, the seas aren’t rising;
powercos though are downsizing;
stop those sceptics analysing
man-made global warming!
We must keep the mob from waking;
hide how much that we were taking;
Mann and Jones et Al. were faking
man-made global warming.
Quench the opposition fires;
all who disagree are liars;
we’ll defame those bad deniers
of our global warming.
What shall we do with the evil-doers?
What shall we do with the peer-reviewers?
What shall we do with corrupting CRUers
faking global warming?