[Grunthor]

The Attack on the Climate-Change fraud.

[Doc Savage]

So this guy has been a complete moron since 1989!!! The GW movement is the last stop for aging communists. They knew they could never conquer us militarily, but realized that they could ruin us economically! The ‘Nation’ is a communist front and always has been!

[GeronL]

The truth.

Its dastardly, I tells ya

[Oberon]

Have you noticed how the media seems to lump together those who are skeptical about climate change with those who are skeptical about humans being the cause of climate change?

Truly, they're two very different questions with two very different standards of proof.

[johncatl]

Yeah Bill. The Earth IS flat.

Junk science=junk results. Quantity is no substitute for quality. Let's see real scientific methods employed and results duplicated by others.

[FlingWingFlyer]

The warmers are losing it. I don’t blame them. They all stand to lose some big bucks with the collapse of their hoax and scam.

[hinckley buzzard]

Bill McKibben is a scientific illiterate who wrote a sci fi book on the ecopocalypse years ago. It was called "The End of Nature" and was a fairly amusing scifi book of a now over-done genre. He has produced no knowledge, done nothing, and been nowhere, but because he sold some books twenty years ago he is considered some kind of guru.

[Bryanw92]

>>Now, you could fill the Superdome with climate-change research data

You could fill the Superdome with Spiderman comics, but that doesn’t make him real. But, at least Marvel never claimed their fiction was real or even based on facts as the global cooling/warming/climate change crowd does.

[DB]

I’m going to enjoy watching real science replace all this voodoo science. A lot of these wannabees are going to have to have a career change... They won’t be welcome in the science community.

[Brugmansian]

The Nation ^ | February 25, 2010 | Bill McKibben

The Nation argued once that slave labor camps did not exist in the Soviet Union. How did the magazine know that? Because slavery could only exist in a capitalist country.

[Stosh]

“...he is co-founder of 350.org, the largest global grassroots organizing campaign on climate change.”

And that fact alone gives me all the confidence in the world that he carefully evaluated the arguments on both sides, exhaustively studied the fundamental science involved, and came to a cold, completely objective conclusion.

Or not.

[y6162]

“Its business model involves using the atmosphere as an open sewer for the carbon dioxide “

Algore plagiarized this line in his NYT OpEd today.

[wendy1946]

cornered rat ping....

[mo]

RICO anybody? There’s a lot gonna go down for fraud!!

[kcvl]

Early critic of warming steps up activist role

Bill McKibben, one of the country's leading environmental writers and activists

McKibben, 46, was among the first to sound the alarm about global warming in 1989 with "The End of Nature." But after that book and nine others, he no longer seems content with just issuing warnings. He wants to lead people into action.

"We've got to have more people working on this issue," McKibben said

"We've heard the science, the economics, even the policy proposals. The only part of the movement we haven't had is the movement itself. We've wasted 20 years."

McKibben's lifework can be traced back to high school in Lexington. His late father, Gordon , was a journalist for The Boston Globe

Studying at Harvard, he became editor of the Harvard Crimson, and landed a plum journalism job, writing "Talk of the Town" items for The New Yorker, after graduation.

McKibben has been writing magazine articles and books ever since, including the just-published "Deep Economy," a hopeful manifesto that encourages communities and regions to produce their food and energy

These days, McKibben is flying around the country, rallying people

More Here

[kcvl]

Bill McKibben: Think about it. All the other things that we’ve done as a species have had a limited scope. We’re now talking about melting the ice caps, raising the level of the seas dramatically, changing the distribution of every other species on Earth, perhaps wiping out one-third or half of them. The changes at work now are geologic in scale. The level of change required to deal with it is enormous, too. It will require change in every country. It will require a degree of global cooperation that we haven’t seen before.

Q: How did we get into this mess?

McKibben: Fossil fuel is very seductive stuff. [John Maynard] Keynes once said that, as far as he could tell, the average standard of living from the beginning of human history to the middle of the eighteenth century had perhaps doubled. Not much had changed, and then we found coal and gas and oil and everything changed. Now we’re reaping the result of that, both ecologically and socially.

In the United States, cheap fossil fuel has eroded communities. We’re the first people with no real practical need for each other. Everything comes from a great distance through anonymous and invisible transactions. We’ve taken that to be a virtue, but it’s as much a curse. Americans are not very satisfied with their lives, and the loss of community is part of that.

Q: Has the Bush Administration played a role in making global warming worse?

McKibben: The Bush Administration was precisely the wrong thing at the wrong time. This was a crucial eight years we lost. We did nothing about our own carbon emissions. As important, we sat idly on the sidelines as emissions in China and India began to take off. I imagine that history will clearly hold Bush responsible for the folly in Iraq. My guess is that doing nothing on global warming at the moment that it was accelerating will also be seen as an abdication of responsibility.

Q: You’ve spent much of your career as a writer, but in the last two years you’ve stepped into the role of a political organizer. What prompted you to make the change?

McKibben: It’s really not my favorite thing. I’m happy to do some of it. I still write. I look forward to the day when that’s all I do. But about two years ago, I was obsessed with the idea that nothing was getting done. Everyone had seen Al Gore’s movie. Everyone had seen what happened in Hurricane Katrina, and nothing was going on in Washington. I organized a march on global warming in Vermont. That march was successful in converting our Congressional delegation into zealots on global warming, but it was depressing to read in that newspaper that the 1,000 people we gathered for the march made it one of the largest demonstrations on global warming in this country. That spurred us to try the Step It Up campaign we did last year. We organized 1,400 demonstrations in all fifty states. Then we created 350.org, a global version of the same idea.

Q: How did you come up with the name, 350.org?

McKibben: Scientists are now telling us that 350 parts per million [of carbon] in the atmosphere is the upper limit. We’re at 387 parts per million now, and we’re up in that zone where the risk of going past irrevocable tipping points is elevated. It’s no different than going to a doctor and learning your cholesterol is too high, and you’re at risk for a heart attack. You have to work to lower your cholesterol and hope to get there before the heart attack comes.

http://www.progressive.org/node/124963

[centurion316]

Oh, this one is going to be fun. So, let's begin:

And here's what's odd. In 1989, I could fit just about every scientific study on climate change on top of my desk. The science was still thin. If my reporting made me think it was nonetheless convincing, many scientists were not yet prepared to agree.

Yes it was odd. How did he leap to this conclusion so early? The answer is obvious, his opinion was not based on scientific understanding, it was based on an emotional and political belief that it was so. It had to be. How else can we save the planet and further our lunatic leftie ideas?

The best analogy, I think, is to the O.J. Simpson trial

Yep, that's the ticket. Paint the evil climate deniers as a cold hearted murderer who beat the rap with the help of slick lawyers and an incompetent judge.

Similarly, the immense pile of evidence now proving the science of global warming beyond any reasonable doubt is in some ways a great boon for those who would like, for a variety of reasons, to deny that the biggest problem we've ever faced is actually a problem at all. If you have a three-page report, it won't be overwhelming and it's unlikely to have many mistakes. Three thousand pages (the length of the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)? That pretty much guarantees you'll get something wrong.

The only problem with this argument is that this emmense pile of evidence is built on a stinking pile of dog manure. First you have a monumental misinterpretation of the data from the Vostok ice cores that led "scientists" to conclude that carbon dioxide was the cause of historical warming, when actually it was merely an indicator that warming had occurred. By putting CO2 on the Most Wanted List, they made it easy to blame human activity for everything. And then there is the annoying little matter of the world's standard temperature data sets that have now been exposed for what they are: data that has been deliberatly altered to produce the result desired by the "Warmers"

The climate deniers come with a few built-in advantages. Thanks to Exxon Mobil and others with a vested interest in debunking climate-change research, their "think tanks" have plenty of money, none of which gets wasted doing actual research to disprove climate change. It's also useful for a movement to have its own TV network, Fox, though even more crucial to the denial movement are a few right-wing British tabloids that validate each new "scandal" and put it into media play.

This one is especially funny. He is right about one thing: this is all about money, but almost all of the money is on his side of the argument. Governments have poured billions into climate research with a flow that is only contingent on the climate scientists "discovering" that there is a crisis that requires drastic government intervention and complete control over every human being on the planet. The comment on Fox is equally laughable. Most of the personalities on Fox are true believers in Global Warming and only stand out because they also present the other side from time to time. The Warmists, however, have the History Channel, the Science Channel, Discovery Channel, and the National Geographic Channel to spew their propaganda 24/7. The MSM networks weigh in from time to time to add emphasis and support.

I work at Middlebury College, a top-flight liberal arts school

So we are supposed to believe that he is a serious scientist who understands how thermodynamics operates in a complex system like a planet?

But it's a mistake to concentrate solely on the science for another reason. Science may be what we know about the world, but politics is how we feel about the world. And feelings count at least as much as knowledge. Especially when those feelings are valid. People are getting ripped off. They are powerless against large forces that are, at the moment, beyond their control. Anger is justified.

This is the Ah Ha moment. You see, facts and science don't really matter after all, what is important is how we feel about all of this. And if we feel its a problem, then we have every right to fudge the facts, exaggerate the effects, and change the entire structure of the world economy. Feelings are important, don't you know.

That's why religious environmentalism is one of the most effective emerging parts of the global warming movement; that's why we were able to get thousands of churches ringing their bells 350 times last October to signify what scientists say is the safe level of CO2 in the atmosphere; that's why Bartholomew, patriarch of the Orthodox church and leader of 400 million eastern Christians, said, "Global warming is a sin and 350 is an act of redemption."

I have no doubt that this is a religious movement, I just don't think that Christianity has anything to do with it, except for a few misguided souls.

Bill McKibben is the author of a dozen books

None of them are science books. He is a journalist and author, he has no scientific training at all. He is, of course, a dedicated enviornmentalist, but that's his religion, not his academic training. Everything that he writes are about his feelings, and we wouldn't want to upset his feelings, would we?

[Lancey Howard]

Hilarious stuff!

It must be a brutal kick in the stomach for these “global warming” hucksters to see the scam they played for over 20 years come completely undone in a matter of weeks. Can you imagine their dismay? For them, the “global cooling” scam of the ‘70s was just a mulligan, and the failure of that version of “climate change” fraud was quickly brushed off. But the sudden failure of the “global warming” scam after all these years? Wow... where can they go now?

The seeming multitudes of despicable, lying “climate scientists” are going to be at each other’s throats as the taxpayer-funded “grant” gravy train begins to dry up. It is my opinion that these clowns should be indicted and thrown in prison for perpetrating and perpetuating the most expensive fraud in history. All of that wasted money is money the taxpayers will never get back.

Of course, decent Americans need to remain ever-vigilant because the international socialists are bound to dream up something new, sooner or later, to try to rob them blind.

[Paladin2]

McGibbon certainly got the "the immense pile of evidence" correct.

No paper has yet shown causality of Human CO2 to temperature change.

[steelyourfaith]

 

ClimateGate

• ClimateGate Raw Emails: East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit searchable

• ClimateGate Updates: Continuously Updated 'ClimateGate' News Round Up from CLIMATE DEPOT

• ClimateGate Timeline History: "ClimateGate - 30 Years in the Making" from Joanne Nova in banner form on pdf file

• ClimateGate Analysis: ClimateGate: The Fix is In excellent overview article including examples of the climate peer review corruption

• ClimateGate Analysis: Climategate: Leaked Emails Inspired Data Analyses Show Claimed Warming Greatly Exaggerated and NOAA not CRU is Ground Zero
  

• ClimateGate U.S. Senate Report: ‘Consensus’ Exposed: The CRU Controversy Feb 2010, 83 pages in pdf form

• ClimateGate Memorandum: Institute of Physics memorandum submitted to the U.K. Parliament concerning the shoddy science practiced by the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and the peer review process