Posted by
RME KRNL on Friday, December 11, 2009 12:08:39 PM
As in: Please try to change, or at least cloud up as much as possible, the real subject. (Climate -- change -- cloud up? Get it? Never mind.)
Since the recent exposure of the UK's climate change scientists' incriminating emails, it seems that lots of folks on the Left are trying to change the subject. Democrat senators are downplaying what the leaked emails reveal (which is fraud) and those in the liberal lamestream media are basically either ignoring the story altogether or, like Paul Krugman of the New York Times and Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, are trying to actively change the subject away from ClimateGate.
Well, if I recently "took on" someone like the New York Times' Paul Krugman over global warming/cllimate change and especially his attempts at "misdirection deception" (see Obama, Paul -- he wrote the manual) on behalf of the recently exposed not-so-slick scientists and their now-not-so-surreptitious emails, I can surely also handle Eugene Robinson, liberal hack writer for the Washington Post, who recently opined in an article called The Copenhagen Conundrum that: "Climate-change skeptics are barking up the wrong smokestack. The shell game being played isn't with the science, it's with the solutions..."
As is too often the case, Mr. Robinson is at best only half right and therefore proves himself once again as at least half of a useful idiot.
He is also, like Krugman and other liberal apologists for and defenders of the crooked climate change scientists, trying to misdirect the public's attention from the "bigger picture," which is that much of the global warming/climate change facts and figures are fake, the proponent scientists know they're fake and that they, along with other promoters like Al Gore, are therefore part of one of the largest, most long-standing and far-reaching frauds in modern history. And that we all, therefore, should tread slowly, perhaps in a more Reaganesque "trust but verify" manner, about making any big, expensive changes in the way we do things until after some of the now even more questionable data have been, uh, at least "rechecked and reverified."
Robinson's own shell game premise, that it's not the so-called "science" but the solutions which are the problem, is correct in that the "solutions" would definitely be both draconian and disastrous -- billions and billions of developed nations' lost treasure and diminution of production capacity at a time when they are already currently struggling with a world-wide recession in exchange for minuscule reductions in so-called man-made, or anthropogenic, "global warming/climate changing" carbon emissions.
As an aside, here is some info for you, courtesy of none other than Glenn Beck, about the current Copenhagen Climate Change Conference and the carbon emissions about which all of its attendees are supposedly so concerned: "The big climate change conference...it's already been conceded that nothing groundbreaking will happen as a result of the meetings. Considering the carbon footprint of this event is larger than what 60 countries produce in an entire year -- combined (Italics added) -- maybe they should get something done since they are hurting the environment so much. Perhaps participants feel a little less guilty now that it's apparent, thanks to the ClimateGate emails, [that] much of the global warming hype is exactly that."
And part of all that carbon emitting globe trotting and conferencing by the attendees is caused by about 1,200 limos and 140 private planes to get to and from and in and around while they're all at Copenhagen for two weeks, too. Hmmm, I'm pretty sure you spell that H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E-S!
But, back on point with "Mr. Eugene of the WaPo," it is also correct that the so-called "settled science" is not only not so "settled" but now patently shown to be outright fraudulent in many respects.
It's the height of irony that global warming scientists, who were after fame and governmental grant money, and self-promoters like Al Gore, who is seemingly forever after fame (after all, it's a long time ago now since he invented the Internet, you know) and who has made millions off of "saving the planet," both early and often derided anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers" and now have been caught denying and manipulating "inconvenient science" themselves. Plus their claims that data collected prior to 1980, which previously allegedly served to substantiate their hypotheses, hyperbole and hype, have now, suddenly and mysteriously, been "accidentally destroyed."
My, my, that's convenient, isn't it? Sort of like, "The dog ate my homework," but even worse. Since they're all "scientists," don'tcha know, it's more like my college professor coming into class and saying he can't each that day because his dog ate his teaching syllabus. How ludicrous (not the rapper, the adjective meaning "amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity").
The fact is, the former "denier" decriers and denouncers are now themselves the "new deniers" -- having long denied Freedom of Information requests so their work could be properly peer reviewed by their more skeptical fellow scientists and now also denying having manipulated data, denying having ignored other data, and denying having "accidentally" destroyed still other data. Gee, just how much denying are we supposed to believe?
Those kinds of "inconvenient truths" are really inconvenient when they come home to roost, aren't they? Karmic "goes around, comes around" can be a real ball-buster, huh, Mr. Eugene?