Climategate – by Andrew Walden


geoff4

Geoff Jenkins is the self-described “front man explaining climate change.”  The UK Guardian in 2004 called him, “the man Tony Blair turns to for the facts about climate change.”  And as the mid-1990s global warming hype was being cranked up to full volume, Jenkins in 1996 formed a “cunning plan”, “inventing” temperature readings, and releasing fake “estimates” of temperature data for the year even before the year is over.

In a November 22, 1996 email to other top global warming scientists, Jenkins writes:

“Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with early release of information (via Oz), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc?  I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year….”

According to Jenkins, the fake temperature information would be fed “selectively to Nick Nuttall (who has had this in the past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write an article for the silly season.”

Nuttall is the Spokesperson and “Head of Media” for the United Nations Environment program.  Global warming is not Nuttall’s only media manipulation enterprise.  In October, 2008 his claims that Somalia had been used as a dumping ground for European toxic waste were immediately picked up by Islamists to justify Somali pirate attacks.

Another source seemingly preferred for the execution of Jenkins’ “cunning plan” is Neville Nicholls, the Senior Principal Research Scientist and Leader, Climate Forecasting Group at the Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre, Melbourne Australia.  Does this explain Jenkins’ “via Oz” remark?  According to his online CV, Nicholls is, “an editor of the Journal of Climate, and was a Convening Lead Author of the IPCC Second Assessment Report on Climate Change.”

Jenkins’ chosen mouthpieces would create a media frenzy “for the silly season.”  Then when the real temperature data comes out: “We relesae (sic) the final estimate on 20 Jan, with a joint UEA/MetO press release. It may not evoke any interest by then.”

Jenkins is not exactly a household name.  But he has been at the center of the global warming movement since the beginning.  The UK Guardian explains:

Jenkins began in the climate prediction business in 1988 when, in response to scientific concerns, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up with Sir John Houghton, then head of the Met Office, as chair of the first scientific group.. Jenkins’s job was to pull together the science from round the world and put together 1990′s groundbreaking Group One report. “It was huge fun. It was not political in those days, it was scientists pooling their best knowledge to produce the best report. They were great days.”

Margaret Thatcher’s enthusiasm for science led to the establishment of the Hadley Centre, programmed to begin to find out how the climate would change over the next century or so with more carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere.

Jenkins was among the 25 original staff in May 1990 – now the staff has tripled. “At first we were entirely in the business of predicting what would happen in the future. It was all very academic, with universities and research institutions. We were the sort of people whose outlets for information were papers in Nature.”

Once the first Earth Summit in Rio had taken place in 1992, the Hadley Centre began to move into the policy area and how to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. This eventually led to the Kyoto Agreement of 1997, which was to be the first step to reducing emissions from industrialised countries.

But by 2000 the mission had changed again – particularly with the floods of that year. The environment department had set up the UK Climate Impacts Programme in Oxford to start dealing with adaptation – something that had not even been considered when the Hadley Centre opened.

The hacked global warming emails are now posted online in a searchable database.  Jenkins’ addressees are led by Phil Jones.  Jones, along with now-discredited tree-ring fraudster Keith Briffa, led the CRU’s defense of the so-called “Hockey Stick Graph” which relied heavily on Briffa’s bogus tree-ring data to falsely show a relatively stable temperature pattern followed by steady temperature increases which coincide with the beginning of the industrial revolution.  The fraudulent chart was included several times in an IPCC report even though its faked data neglected to include neither the well-established “little ice age” nor the equally well-documented “mediaeval warming period”.

Searches for the names of Mann, Jones, and Briffa each bring up about 500 emails.

Mann is a leading author on the global warming blog “real climate”.  Scientific American in 2005 tagged Real Climate, “A refreshing antidote to the political and economic slants that commonly color and distort news coverage of topics like the greenhouse effect, air quality, natural disasters and global warming.”

The scientists do not work alone.  As RealClimate explained in 2005: “…our domain is being hosted by Environmental Media Services, and our initial press release was organised for us by Fenton Communications….”

Activist Cash explains what EMS and Fenton are:

If you’ve ever been advised to steer clear of a food, beverage, or other consumer product based on the claims of a nonprofit organization, you’ve likely been “spun” by Fenton’s multi-million-dollar message machine — and Environmental Media Services (EMS) has probably been the messenger.

EMS is the communications arm of leftist public relations firm Fenton Communications. Based in Washington, in the same office suite as Fenton, EMS claims to be “providing journalists with the most current information on environmental issues..” A more accurate assessment might be that it spoon-feeds the news media sensationalized stories, based on questionable science, and featuring activist “experts,” all designed to promote and enrich David Fenton’s paying clients, and build credibility for the nonprofit ones. It’s a clever racket, and EMS & Fenton have been running it since 1994….

It’s called “black marketing,” and Environmental Media Services has become the principal reason Fenton Communications is so good at it. EMS lends an air of legitimacy to what might otherwise be dismissed (and rightly so) as fear-mongering from the lunatic fringe. In addition to pre-packaged “story ideas” for the mass media, EMS provides commentaries, briefing papers, and even a stable of experts, all carefully calculated to win points for paying clients. These “experts,” though, are also part of the ruse. Over 70% of them earn their paychecks from current or past Fenton clients, all of which have a financial stake in seeing to it that the scare tactics prevail. It’s a clever deception perpetrated on journalists who generally don’t consider do-gooder environmentalists to be capable of such blatant and duplicitous “spin.”

The first rule of this game is that it’s strictly pay-for-play. For a price, you too can promote your product by maligning the competition with junk-science smear tactics. To Fenton Communications, you’ll be a “client”; down the hall at EMS, though, you’ll join the ranks of its “project partners.” And nobody will be the wiser.

Environmental Media Services was founded in 1994 by Arlie Schardt, who would later serve as communications director for Al Gore‘s 2000 Presidential campaign.  Schardt in the 1970s left his position as a Sports Illustrated writer to head the Environmental Defense Fund.  He was also a project director for Teresa Heinz Kerry’s and George Soros’ Tides Center, then chaired by ACORN founder Wade Rathke.  In 2005, shortly after the RealClimate admission, Schardt retired and EMS was renamed the Science Communication Network.  Their website carries a running feed of articles they have planted in the media on behalf of “organic” food processing and marketing clients of Fenton Communications.

Why would Jenkins want to cover up the real data?  Well, even with the faked data, he did not look forward to having to explain that 1996 was in fact cooler than 1995.  So he suggested:

“We explain why the globe is 0.23k (or whatever the final figure is) cooler than 95 (NAO reversal, slight La Nina). Also that global annual avg is only accuirate (sic) to a few hundredths of a degree (we said this last year – can we be more exact, eg PS/MS 0.05K or is this to big??)”

In spite of this, their scam was noticed at the time–but not by Fenton’s spoon-fed media outlets.  For instance, on March 18, 1996 Michael Fumento of the Washington Times wrote:

In early January, the Climatic Research Unit at England’s University of East Anglia made headlines, including the New York Times, with a preliminary report saying 1995 was the hottest year on record. But their data were for only 11 months. Rather than risk December’s temperatures spoiling everything, they jumped the gun and sent out their press releases.

Their fears were fulfilled when December’s average temperature came in at the lowest in 17 years. “It was a pretty ordinary year,” said NASA scientist John Christy, who has been analyzing satellite data on temperature since 1979. And James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who pretty much started the whole global-warming scare, admits his study of land areas – where the effects of global warming would be most severe – revealed that 1995 was about 0.02 degrees celsius cooler than 1990.

In Jenkins’ email, “NAO reversal” refers to an inconvenient cooling of ocean temperatures labeled: “North Atlantic Oscillation.”  “Slight La Nina” refers to an equally inconvenient cooling of the Pacific called the the South Pacific Decadal Oscillation.  The same excuses for global cooling are still being used 13 years later.  For instance, consider this item from an October 9, 2009 BBC article titled, “What happened to global warming?”:

But those scientists who are equally passionate about man’s influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.

The UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.

In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures – all of which are accounted for by its models.

In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.

What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.

Tom Wigley is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science described as “one of the world’s foremost experts on climate change and one of the most highly cited scientists in the discipline..”  He has argued that the global warming alarmists are not alarming enough asserting: “the human-induced changes that are expected over the next 100 years are much, much greater than any changes that societies experienced in the past.”  In an October 14, 2009 email, Wigley discusses similar methods for making cooling look like warming by manipulating the data:

…here are some notes of mine on the recent lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the observed data.  Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.

While trying to figure out what degree of inaccuracy they could get away with asserting, and dithering over how to play with numbers to make cooling into warming, Jenkins had no problem peddling the wildest global warming claims.  For instance the September 28, 1996 London Evening Standard reports:

An alarming picture of how London would be affected by global warming was painted by the Government’s top climate change adviser today.

Dr Geoff Jenkins fears that summer temperatures could hit 45C (113F), raising the spectre of thousands dying through heat-related illnesses; the number of days of extreme heat will rise 20-fold and rainfall will be down by a fifth making droughts a common occurrence.

What rain we get will be in heavier bursts and, as it hits parched ground, will increase the threat of floods threefold. Rising sea levels will see the Thames rise by 3ft, requiring billions to be spent on flood defences …

That was the propaganda required to peddle global warming in the mid-1990s.  But in the next decade, global warmers sought to look past their wild claims and pretend that a “consensus’ exists.  Jenkins, in lockstep, provided the “scientific” veneer for these claims telling the BBC July 27, 2004:

“We’ve reached the point where it’s only by including human activity that we can explain what’s happening.”

Doing their part to make up the story, the emailing global warming scientists are just cogs in this machine.  But if the cogs seize up, the machine breaks down.

  • http://www.tarandfeathers.shugartmedia.com/ Tar_and_Feathers

    One serving of bad science with some faulty logic, wrapped in two slices of leftwing political propaganda, and you have the crap sandwich that the environmentalists have been trying to force feed us for two decades.

    There are so many common sense questions that have gone unanswered, it would be tedious to list them all. So I'll ask just one set: WHAT IS A NORMAL CLIMATE? Based on what? How has it been tabulated and based on what data? Measured where and how? What regions, and over what period of time? How are the variations determined and measured? Do we know what causes them?

    It's a big freaking “I don't know.” But they do have some theories. And so I ask, “How have the climate change zealots made the leap from theory to fact?” And for full credit, please be sure to show your work.

  • Nick Nuttall

    I cannot comment on all the errors in your article–ones either via manipulation of language or by omission of reality. But your reference to me is for sure one.
    I have not always had the pleasure of being the Spokesperson and Head of Media for the UN Environment programme. In the mid 1990s, I was the environment and technology correspondent of The Times newspaper in London. So please do a bit of fact checking before you publish uncensored drivel or hatch what you percieve as a 'cunning plan' to discredit others.

  • Walt

    You might try taking a course in reading comprehension. Mr. Walden stated clearly: “Nuttall is the Spokesperson and “Head of Media” for the United Nations Environment program.” This reference is in the present tense, and does not imply that you had always been employed by that entity. Also, you seem to be avoiding the more substantive claims made in this article. What errors, manipulations, or omissions of reality are you referring to? Are you in the habit of making accusations without backing them up? Haughtiness is not a substitute for veracity.

  • mememine

    How foolish do these warmies feel now after 23 years of “the scientists tell us”?

  • http://twitter.com/ARKovnat Alex Kovnat

    Given the hatred these environmentalists have of the automobile and our way of life, is it really surprizing that they would resort to fraud and deception to advance their goals?

  • keithrage

    This is criminal and I will be active in the push for all you fraudulent weather scammers to face legal actions, the millions of dollars lost in your scam of B.S. reporting and the billions you have cost in wasted governmental reaction programs across the world…you need your collective asses kicked then huddle in jail and get your own warming.

  • CowboyUp

    Lol, forget about 'scientists' falsifying data, the aptly named Nuttall is miffed they didn't go further into his employment history. Feel free to set us knaves straight, nick, we have our waders on.

  • therealend

    Fact checking is now your cause? Brilliant!

  • BibleProphecyOnTheWeb

    Since 1982 I have been sharing that the root cause of the environmental declines we are facing throughout the world today is a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. Once one-fourth part of the earth is destroyed (Re.6:7-8) we will move forward to the next Seal events, followed by Trumpet events, followed by Plague events. The earth is on a downhill slid from which it will not recover. The first four Trumpet events will destroy an additional one-third (Re.8:7-12).

  • Just Wondering

    “Doing their part to make up the story, the emailing global warming scientists are just cogs in this machine. But if the cogs seize up, the machine breaks down.”

    If they are the cogs, then who is the engine? The driving force?

  • The_Inquisitor

    Climate change would not be an issue if people understood that whatever the facts are it's none of the government's business. Take society's peacekeeping agency with its monopoly on the use of force and attendant corruption out of the equation and the issue of climate change would go puff; it would be relegated to a few scientists and curiosity seekers of the arcane.

    The man made global warming cranks aren't the problem. The problem is those who acquiesce to government involvement in the issue.

  • poptoy1949

    THERE IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE THAT WILL DESTROY THIS PLANET!!!!! Now enough.

  • stefcho

    The IPCC needs to be subject to a fraud investigation. Climate fraudsters should be prosecutes for their deliberate deceptions.

  • poha

    Aloha Mr Walden, thanks for this article and for posting @ HawaiiFreePress!
    ” … about post-normal science (@HADCRU):
    … The danger of a “normal” reading of science is that it assumes science can first find truth, then speak truth to power, and that truth-based policy will then follow…exchanges often reduce to ones about scientific truth rather than about values, perspectives and political preferences … we need to see how we can use the idea of climate change – the matrix of ecological functions, power relationships, cultural discourses and materials flows that climate change reveals – to rethink how we take forward our political, social, economic and personal projects over the decades to come …” 82. burrah
    http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/1
    also, 44. Harry

    ” … attempt to pass off the preferences of a single group as some kind of pseudo-science. There's a much simpler term for this dishonest phrase: politics. Post-normal science is nothing but a cheap and lying term for a political diktat; for the rule of the self-appointed over everyone else. Whatever truth “Global Warming” may contain it has surely been damaged by its association with this disreputable and vile concept …” posted by Wretchard at 3/15/2007
    http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2007/03/wha

    http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/cli

    HADCRU sounds like they think they are at the continuously on-going Faculty meeting at UH (University of Hawaii) (or, pick-one Univ).

  • davarino

    Right, pip pip and all that wrought, Bob's your uncle hehehe.

    Your sophistication is lost on me Nick.

    Anything else important to say?

  • davarino

    Ya thanks, appreciate the heads up

  • http://sites.google.com/site/warpminesblog/ warpmine

    Well, you can forget the UN policing their own as we know most of them are complicit in perpetrating the fraud. They love their cushy feel good jobs so after all said and done they will fight for them despite evidence to the contary. It is bad enough to be thought of as a fool but much worse than that is to prove them right.

    Soon enough they will concocht another disaster scenario which states that the over use of magnets in the world today is playing a big role in the weakening of the Earth's magnetic field causing the mafneyic poles to flip. This will be the new :the sky is fallinf” moment.

  • USMCSniper

    Charles Biggs says:

    31,000 U.S. scientists – 9,000 with doctorate degrees in atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting global warming.

    The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master’s level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.

    Global warming assumes that human production of greenhouse gases is destroying the Earth’s climate.

    According to the petition, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.

    “Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

    The Petition Project http://www.petitionproject.org has been underway for 10 years.

    The Capa & Trade campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded,” he said. “In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries

  • USMCSniper

    The scientists who are involved ion corrupting or discarding data are through in the world of science. There can be no more serious a crime among scientists than what they have done. No future work of any of them will be accepted at face value. They all will forever have the darkest of clouds over their heads.

    or the UN to now claim this makes no difference is the most absurd of statements made on this issue. The findings with which this organization has been beating the entire world over it's collective head is now being discarded.

    This angry loud spin is expected from the alarmists and other Left groups as they try to shift attention away from the now discredited gobal warming movement. Most likely they will resort o one of their time tested approaches of claiming the hacked emails are meaningless because they were stolen. This of course completely ignores those facts contained within the emails, but the Left seldom let's truth get in the way of their collectivist agenda.

  • WTF_Idiots

    Um, do you guys realize that the findings of the IPCC regarding climate change are pretty much identical to the findings of every other scientific body, including NASA? Did you also know that not one single, solitary scientific body in the entire world has NOT endorsed climate change/global warming as something that is real, and accelerated by humans?

  • davarino

    The UN should be trusted to police themselve, look how well they did with the oil for food program …….hehehhehehehe whew I laughed so hard I pee'd myself

  • davarino

    What are you saying?

  • USMCSniper

    I told you once you were an epistemological imcompetent. Lesson for today.

    “The number of people behind any argument nor who these people are does not represent an objective criteria for the argument to be either true or untrue.”

    Didn't all the world believe the Earth was the center of the universe at one time? Case closed.

  • davarino

    Whew, they (global warming nutjobs) almost got away with it. Who are these guys that hacked these emails, they deserve the Nobel what ever prize. They deserve the key to whatever city they like. Thanks guys, we appreciate it. In this particular case I appreciate email hackers heheheh you guys rock : )

    Now we have to prepare for the next hoax. I wander what that might be, a shortage of rocks hehehe I love it when the good guys win. They always do in the end.

    Suck it pin heads

  • btok

    I believe the Copenhagen Treaty Summit should be cancelled! How in God's name can this be considered a legal agreement when a “Huge Amount” of the basis for the “Climate Change Data” has been found to be “Fraudulently Sabotaged” and absolutely “Inaccurate”? This is signing an agreement Document that has “No Legal Foundation” of Realistic conditions or elements due to “Inaccurate and Manipulated Data” as described and therefore, anything stated on this “Copenhagen Treaty Document” should be considered “Null and Void”! Why create a Pandora's Box, subject to “Lawsuits and Misgivings” due to total inaccuracy of “Scientific Measurements”? Which “Now” is proving to be the case! This Treaty has no Legal ground to stand on and is and will be a “False Document” from day one!
    Find out what Governments are doing behind your back, go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU

  • WTF_Idiots

    HAHAHAHAHA. Wow. Powerful line of reasoning there, slappy. Global warming probably doesn't exist because:

    Hundreds of years ago, people believed the Earth was flat.
    The Earth is not flat.
    Therefore, global warming is not real.

    Maybe it's time for you to get back to the drawing board there, buddy.

  • Billionair AlGore

    Idiots says: “Did you also know that not one single, solitary scientific body in the entire world has NOT endorsed climate change/global warming as something that is real, and accelerated by humans?”

    FALSE:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion
    Here is a short list of sci orgs which have not accepted AGW:

    American Association of State Climatologists
    American Association of Petroleum Geologists
    American Geological Institute
    American Institute of Professional Geologists
    Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences

  • dougloss

    So you're doing just what all the other AGW fraudsters are doing, ignoring any information that doesn't fit your preconceived conclusions. Typical, and completely predictable. You've lost on this issue and don't even realize it.

  • DemocracyFirst

    You're absolutely right. Instead, governments should call for an investigation into the credibility of scientists who have pushed the global warming theory. If the outcome discredits them and their science, then call the whole thing off.

  • http://twitter.com/BenInNy Ben Coultry

    Well aren't you just a ray of sunshine.

  • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BibleProphecy BibleProphecyOnTheWeb

    I gets worse.
     
    Patricia – Bible Prophecy on the Web

    http://bibleprophecy.multiply.com
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BibleProphecy

  • bubba4

    Every generation has kooks that say the end of the world is coming SOON.

    The last thing the people on this board need is some bible thumper to start translating the book of Revelation for them.

  • thinker1

    Anything to pull more money from our pockets is OK? WH thinks so.
    American MSM proving again they are worthless liars and useless rags………..wait! print 'em on a thinner paper, we can use it in our bathrooms!
    Earth is cooling. COoling. COOLING!
    C…O…O…L……I……….N…………..G…………………..

  • dayly

    lol you slow who are you

  • bubba4

    I tell you what's crazy….stupid scientists can't account for 90% of the mass in the universe. How can we believe anything science has to tell us.

  • Mario and Luigi

    “So please do a bit of fact checking before you publish uncensored drivel….”

    So you prefer censored drivel?

  • bubba4

    I don't know about you, but I don't trust anyone but the American Association of Petroleum Geologists when it comes to what to do next.

  • davorino

    Yes, and they keep on searching with honest and above board peer review. They arent strong arming all the other scientists into believing the mass has disapeared into a black hole that will end the universe tomorrow if we dont all bow down and give them all our money.

  • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BibleProphecy BibleProphecyOnTheWeb

    One is not to give offence to anyone (1 Cor.10:32).  These un-kind remarks offend me.
     

    Patricia – Bible Prophecy on the Web -

    http://bibleprophecy.multiply.com
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BibleProphecy

  • bubba4

    Actually they “strong arm” other scientists into believing in “dark matter” so the big bang theory isn't threatened…but that is another subject.

    There is reason why no one says “global warming” anymore…because dumbasses would sit around in snow and say “see it's freezing”.

    Who has been asking for your money? As a nation we haven't done very much in the area of cutting back on pollution…at least not for the last decade or so. Nothing has been asked of most of you except that you recycle a little bit and you have to endure horrible PSAs on television.

    I know your neighborhood has yet experienced any major differences due to man's effect on the earth. I like to go outside and if the sun is shining and the birds are tweeting in suburbia, I like to think of the whole of the earth is just like that…

  • bubba4

    Your extra spacing and self righteousness offend me….

  • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BibleProphecy BibleProphecyOnTheWeb

    In Christ Jesus we are all righteous (Luke 5:32).

  • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BibleProphecy BibleProphecyOnTheWeb

    What is “extra spacing”?

  • davarino

    Wow, I dont think there is any strong arming going on concerning dark matter, its a theory, a hypothesis. Its called dark matter because you cant see what is obviously there, coalescing all of the seen matter. Then to prove your theory you do tests to see if your theory matches the data. DATA. The second the data doesnt match what the theory predicts then the theory goes out the window. Get it?

    “There is reason why no one says “global warming” anymore…because dumbasses would sit around in snow and say “see it's freezing”.”

    Not sure what your trying to say here, unless you are trying to tell us its now called “climate change”. Next your going to be calling it “climate whatever fits our agenda today”

    I dont know, maybe I missed something, but I thought I heard the powers that be wanted the US to pay a ton of money to thirdworld countries. Also I think China and India have a hell of a long way to go to match our low emission standard. I dont know that any thing we do now could put a dint in what they are doing.

    Why do you hate America so much?

  • bubba4

    Wow, I dont think there is any strong arming going on concerning dark matter, its a theory, a hypothesis. Its called dark matter because you cant see what is obviously there, coalescing all of the seen matter. Then to prove your theory you do tests to see if your theory matches the data. DATA. The second the data doesnt match what the theory predicts then the theory goes out the window. Get it?

    “Dark Matter” is like the remainder of an imbalanced equation. It cannot be proven or dis-proven because whatever “it” is, it doesn't register (it's not that we just can't “see” it in the visible spectrum…it's that it's a nickname for a massive amount of unaccounted for mass.

    But you just want to argue…I was making a pithy little funny…but thanks for the attempt to condescend to me. Science is not perfect, but it's all we got…and thousands of scientists around the world are contributing data for various global climate initatives while they OBSERVE alarming trends in the environment.

    Now, you've been trained to reject even the slightest hint that anything is wrong, so I doubt you have really taken in a lot of information on this subject…but I am still relatively young and just what I've seen happen in my lifetime is alarming. You really think we (and you've have to excuse the use of “we” being humanity) can just continue on this way forever?

    “There is reason why no one says “global warming” anymore…because dumbasses would sit around in snow and say “see it's freezing”.” Not sure what your trying to say here, unless you are trying to tell us its now called “climate change”. Next your going to be calling it “climate whatever fits our agenda today”

    You're right…I looked outside and it's cold and peaceful…so I think we're going to be OK. I know there is a ball of garbage the size of a small state floating in the ocean, but I can push that out of my head too.

    “I dont know, maybe I missed something, but I thought I heard the powers that be wanted the US to pay a ton of money to thirdworld countries.”

    Gee…I wonder where you “heard” this.

    “Also I think China and India have a hell of a long way to go to match our low emission standard. I dont know that any thing we do now could put a dint in what they are doing.”

    Hmm…You have this strange attitude about it, like someone has been coming around and blaming you personally for pollution. So instead of thinking of America as the strong leading force in the world and that helps us survive our own future…in your mind it's a cowering little bitch concerned only with looking for excuses to do nothing. Why do you hate America so much?

  • dayly

    yah i no who you is

  • casull454

    The link to Mr. Fumento's Mar 18 1996 article was incorrect in this article. Here is a corrected link:
    http://fumento.com/chills.html