Posted on 12/02/2009 11:18:53 AM PST by Chattering Class of 58
It just does not get any better than this...
4 later
Obama can do or say anything he likes at Copenhagen. It means precisely nothing without the approval of the Senate, which, given the evidence of fraud, I doubt will be forthcoming, even with the lopsided Demo majority.
Thanks for the link...it is an excellent read. Monckton nails it.
As an AGW denier, and a global warming sceptic for many, many years, this is vindication. I’ve been rubbing a lot of AGW fanatics nose in Climategate and enjoying it.
The e-mail and data shows that we were exactly right. I hope a bunch of them do go to jail.
bookmark
“Information is powerful. Look for Obama to go on an all out offensive to squash it.”
Extremely profound statement.. exactly correct.
Bet he ignores the entire climate warming conspiracy.
I see an upcoming trip to Alaska for a photo-op to stand at the base of a melting glacier - and a few polar bears in the background would be good too...:^)
That was an EXCELLENT post ... probably the most definitive of the explanations I’ve seen. Thank you.
It does have lots of coherent information I have been looking for, and pages 40, 41 & 42 are links to more good stuff from the Science and Public Policy Institute website.
It is truly the best 'climate truth' info I've yet seen.
Thanks to Chattering Class of 58
It means precisely nothing without the approval of the Senate”
Wondering.....Some say that’s true, others say it isn’t. Which is the truth and if it is true that it would not be binding without Senate approval anyway, why have some bothered to warn Obama not to sign it? And do you know...I’ve also heard that once it is signed, there is never any turning back.
Thanks, this is GREAT!
Quite an article. But don’t hold your breath until it appears on CNN.
bfl
The Constitution says that if the Senate doesn't ratify a treaty, it doesn't go into effect, period. What Obama says, signs, or farts in Copenhagen is irrelevant.
ping
Great Post. I have downloaded and read the entire article. I am printing it now.
Here are my thoughts, both positive and negative.
This is the most intricate and detailed report out about the scandal. It is pretty definitive and cites sources and quotes. I am not smart enough to say it is bulletproof. But it is certainly convincing. It is worthy of wide publication.
The downside....I wish he would have tempered the enthusiasm, name calling and slander a bit. It is a scathing piece for sure. It would be even more credible if the author didn’t come across as so much of a “I told you so” cheerleader. The story and the facts are damning enough. It is very scientific but is littered with the same type of vitriol that was obvious in the hacked correspondence. A more professional approach (lacking the name calling and emotional personal conjecture) would make it even more compelling (in my opinion).
Consider that my peer review.
Again, thanks for posting.
“The e-mail and data shows that we were exactly right. I hope a bunch of them do go to jail.”
For being wrong and stupid?
For fraud. How much falsified data has been used in their requests for grants? Misuse of public funds would be ok too. How about failure to comply with FOI requests? The UK has criminal penalties for it.
While we're at it, I hope the skeptics targeted by this cabal sue their asses off in civil court too. Several respected scientists were trashed because their conclusions ran counter to the warming data used by CRU, NASA, and NOAA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.