Not so strange bedfellows: Evolutionists and Global Warming proponents

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?  This is really quite huge.  It demonstrates the lies behind the global warming fraud and that they are some of the techniques used by evolutionists to avoid competition with their worldview.  The Expelled! movie could have been made about GW alarmists as well.

It is hard to imagine a bigger story.  If the roles were reversed Hollywood would be firing up an Academy Award winning movie  highlighting the evil Right Wingers and their plot to fake evidence to destroy economies, expand government controls and take over the world.  Only in this case, it is the Left trying to do exactly that.  And they were busted. 

These scientists are frauds and liars and indirectly stole billions of dollars. 

I’m tagging this as a favorite for future use in reminding people that not all scientists are just noble, fact seeking purists.  The stain of original sin affects us all. 

Just one question: Will all the school kids who suffered through An Inconvenient Truth be told the real truth now?  Countless children were forced to watch the Inherit the Wind evolution propoganda movie as well.

Here’s another take on this critical story.

I borrowed stole these examples of the fraud from the Wintery Knight:

  • Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)
  • Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
  • Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!
  • Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI (Freedom of Information) request.(1212063122)
  • Phil Jones says he has use Mann’s “Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series”…to hide the decline”. Real Climate says “hiding” was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)
  • Kevin Trenberth says they can’t account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can’t.(1255352257)
  • Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be “hiding behind them”.(1106338806)
  • Reaction to McIntyre’s 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper’s editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers – Saiers was subsequently ousted]
  • Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)
  • It goes on and on. There are FORTY-SEVEN of these.

0 thoughts on “Not so strange bedfellows: Evolutionists and Global Warming proponents”

    1. I’m pretty much drunk on schadenfreude at this point.

      Schadenfreude, sweet schadenfreude. Barkeep, I’ll have what LCB is having. I’m getting drunk on this as well.

      Like

  1. Can I ask what this has to do with evolution? Do you have some email from Richard Dawkins to a university, asking them to hide the recently discovered “Ark”?

    As for the nail being in the coffin due to some emails, I’m pretty sure that out of the million or so emails that were obtained, the ones released were the ones that looked the worst. I’d like to see what the rest of them say. I’ve heard that some were taken widely out of context. That said, some seemed incriminating to a point. I’m very worried that many people are failing to uphold the most important aspect of science – impartiality, but I’m still confident that the truth will always come out, if we look for it.

    You guys need to be impartial too. In the case of global warming, I’m not an expert, but I know that there are many reasons to switch to renewable, and cleaner forms of energy that have nothing to do with climate change.

    Like

    1. Can I ask what this has to do with evolution?

      Everything. Go see Expelled! again. It is the same sort of worldview-driven lies and bullying in both cases.

      I know that there are many reasons to switch to renewable, and cleaner forms of energy that have nothing to do with climate change.

      I’m all about reduce / re-use / recycle. This is my Father’s world. We should be good stewards of it. I recycle newspapers. My car gets 33 MPG. We minimize our utilities. And on and on.

      But the GW stuff is based on lies — lies to make money for Al Gore & Co., lies to destroy our economy and put people out of work, lies to transfer incredible power to the gov’t with no accountability or exit plan, and more.

      Like

      1. As I said below, I don’t have reason to defend global warming, and I don’t advocate any more conservation than you already seem to be doing. Good for you. I ride my bike to work, but I love my SUV, and can’t see myself giving it up for anything.

        As for Expelled!, I can’t believe you don’t see through that movie. It was truly pathetic in every sense. The Hitler thing is laughable, and has nothing to do with the issue. Really – I’m open to a debate on that issue any time you like. I’ll bring doughnuts.

        Like

      2. Very cool that you can ride your bike to work. My life expectancy would reduce to virtually zero if I tried that.

        I saw critiques of the Hitler bits from this side as well. I thought it was perfectly acceptable though perhaps superfluous. He just gave examples of people who take evolutionary theory to its logical conclusion. You just haven’t evolved enough to see why there is nothing wrong with eugenics. Give it time.

        The rest was well researched and fairly presented. Even IF the evolutionists were right they behave like they have no confidence in their views. The Smithsonian thing and more were cases of spoiled little children acting like bullies because someone dared to challenge their worldview. Pathetic. They are as despicable as the AGW liars.

        Like

      3. Yeah, we have designated bike lanes now, which is very cool, but now cars like to use those lanes now to get around rush hour.

        Anyone who takes evolution to its “logical conclusions” is a psychopath, just as those who take gravity to its logical conclusions, and throw other people out of windows. Yes, there have been people that support eugenics, but that is not the fault of scientists any more than Einstein is responsible for Hiroshima.

        I believe one could make a documentary that does not lie, but is completely misleading. Expelled tried to make it seem that there are a ton of qualified scientists that are constantly being denied access to research funding and tenure. That’s just not true. I’ve never even seen a research paper on Inteligent Design. Anything of value could get legs very quickly in this digital world.

        Like

      4. Anyone who takes evolution to its “logical conclusions” is a psychopath, just as those who take gravity to its logical conclusions, and throw other people out of windows

        Who are you to judge someone as a psychopath? If the universe is just materials they had no choice.

        Taking gravity to its logical conclusions has nothing to do with throwing people out of windows.

        Yes, there have been people that support eugenics, but that is not the fault of scientists

        I didn’t say it was the fault of the scientists. I said it was a logical conclusion of that worldview. If the worldview is true — that is, if things in the universe really operate that way — then there is nothing to be at “fault” about. If they worldview is false then anyone advancing it would be at fault.

        Expelled tried to make it seem that there are a ton of qualified scientists that are constantly being denied access to research funding and tenure.

        Oh, so you need a high volume of injustice to make it injustice? You are missing the point of the movie: The bullies and frauds like those exposed in Expelled! keep others from speaking their minds. They rightfully fear losing reputations, tenure and jobs. That is why the evolutionists do what they do: Make examples like that to silence the opposition. If you’ve devoted years and tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars through undergraduate, graduate and Phd programs you’ll think twice before crossing those who can take away that in an instant.

        These people are the opposite of everything good about science and education.

        I am surprised you can’t see that.

        Like

      5. Who are you to judge someone as a psychopath? If the universe is just materials they had no choice.

        My use of the word psychopath is actually a clinical term, and applies to this situation, as it is defined as someone without empathy towards others. I think one needs to lack empathy to enforce eugenics.

        So if evolution is true, everything you believe must be false? You are creating a false dichotomy. There are many many people who believe completely in evolution, but think that God played a role, or guided the whole process. As you know, I am an atheist, but I honestly have no quarrel with the view that God may exist, and I don’t think the existence of God needs to be a factor in this discussion.

        The bullies and frauds like those exposed in Expelled! keep others from speaking their minds.

        Anyone is free to speak their minds. Private Universities are not required to allow any and all viewpoints to be expressed by their Professors. The view that intelligent design is a scientific theory is held by very very few scientists, and I doubt you could find any theory believed by so few experts taught in any university in any subject at all.

        Universities want professors who do science, write papers, and test their theories. How can someone test the theory of intelligent design? The only literature I see from ID people is attacking evolution, not really saying anything about what they believe, why they believe it, and how it could be falsified.

        Like

      6. I think one needs to lack empathy to enforce eugenics.

        But not to pay to have your unborn child destroyed??!! And if the universe is just materials then empathy is an illusion and/or you have no reason to hold up empathy as a virtue.

        The view that intelligent design is a scientific theory is held by very very few scientists, and I doubt you could find any theory believed by so few experts taught in any university in any subject at all.

        Maybe because they lose their jobs and people try to destroy their lives if they express their views?

        The only literature I see from ID people is attacking evolution

        That statement is even better than a full concession speech.

        I didn’t realize that any critiques would be considered to be “attacks.” Interesting word choice.

        And the reason the insiders don’t “attack” evolution is because they are insiders and/or want to stay that way.

        Like

      7. Stop with the “universe is just materials” stuff. There are plenty of things we don’t understand yet. False dichotomy again.

        ID people don’t critique evolution. They attack it with the same debunked arguments every single time. That’s why there are so few debates these days. There are no new arguments (at least that I’ve heard of).

        Who are these people with “destroyed lives” for pushing ID? Where is their research, and if it is being quashed by the mainstream science journals, why are there not Christian science journals willing to publish it? Science is not an exclusive club. Everyone can play, and it doesn’t take much to get a voice in this day and age.

        Like

      8. ID people don’t critique evolution. They attack it with the same debunked arguments every single time. That’s why there are so few debates these days. There are no new arguments (at least that I’ve heard of).

        LOL. Well, gee, since you use the word attacked instead of critiqued then you must be right. What a joke. And you beg the question with your “debunked arguments” and ignore that we could make the same claims about evolutionary fallacies.

        The reason there are few debates is because Dawkins dodges them and people like you make lame excuses like that. Go read Wintery Knight’s site for some debates.

        Who are these people with “destroyed lives” for pushing ID? Where is their research, and if it is being quashed by the mainstream science journals, why are there not Christian science journals willing to publish it? Science is not an exclusive club. Everyone can play, and it doesn’t take much to get a voice in this day and age.

        Ryan, once again I’m having to repeat myself. Don’t comment again on this. You just run in circles. People who pushed ID were visciously attacked and lost tenure and jobs. You play the “it was only a few” game and deliberately avoid the obvious point: There are few because the stakes are so high. You have no credibility on this and I weary of talking with ostriches.

        You just provide more evidence of the dangers of fraudulent scientists and those who willingly cover for them. It is immoral, expensive and deadly.

        Like

      9. It’s okay, you don’t need to answer my questions. Just tell me to shut up.

        I’ve got a world of information about evolution that you just don’t want to hear. All you do on this issue is attack my credibility, something you know nothing about.

        Like

  2. Ryan,
    No one is saying that switching to these forms of resources is bad, if it is cost effective. The problem has been being forced to do so when it is NOT cost effective because of the lies put forth trying to save a planet that doesn’t need to be saved. You need to realize that most of these GW proponents are anti-capitalists, except in the case of Al Gore, is a real capitalist and will become the first billionaire off of this created and false industry. The entire movement has been based upon lies and skewed data.

    So why are you trying to defend it all???

    Like

    1. I don’t want to pretend I know a lot about global warming on either side. It happens that I go to the same coffee shop as one of the most prominent environmental scientists in the world (for the past 40 years) and one of the leaders of the movement to prevent climate change. I have the utmost respect for this man, and I’m very sure he is not in it for the money. This affects my opinion on the issue, but it is not a particularly informed opinion. I try not to defend the scientists, as my defence means nothing in view of hard facts. I remain skeptical on the issue.

      The entire movement has been based upon lies and skewed data.

      That’s not true at all. There have been exposed exaggerations, and possibly, some outright lies and bad science, but it takes much more than that to convince scientists all over the world that global warming is real, and man-made.

      As far as sustainable forms of energy being cost effective, I am support of changing our source of energy, as long as the added costs are not too high. I know people will not change there ways unless it makes sense financially. The thing is, if we all change fairly quickly, the costs of changing go down drastically. We need to care for our planet, even if it costs more.

      I really take issue with the comparison to evolution, which has none of the lies and bad science, and no vested interests. That is an issue about which I am very knowledgeable, and have standing to defend.

      Like

      1. In the wake of the massive hoax uncovered at CRU, are you at least willing to admit that the science is no longer settled?

        Like

      2. It has little to do with recent news, but I admit it is no longer settled in my mind. I am actually feeling a little sceptical about it, and I think I will do some reading on it.

        Al Gore is actually going to be on national radio in Canada in the morning, along with Dr. David Suzuki. Obviously, this will just one side of the story, but the guy interviewing them usually brings up opposing views, and I will commit to reading some literature from opponents. Is that fair?

        Like

      3. Some good reading is found in the bibiography of the late Micheal Crichton’s book, State of Fear. The book was alright, the bibliography even more so.

        Like

      4. Also, he has written a number of essays on the subject. My personal favorite: Aliens Caused Global Warming. Hilarious and sobering.

        http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html

        The best quote from the speech:

        “Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

        Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

        There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. ”

        Read the whole thing. Please.

        Like

      5. But it is so easy to have a “concensus” when you control the universities, media, government, textbooks and public education.

        Yes, the truth is what corresponds to reality. AGW does not.

        Like

  3. Ryan said “I believe one could make a documentary that does not lie, but is completely misleading.”

    Yes. It is called “An Inconvenient Truth”.

    Like

  4. If there was really a global warming crisis…

    …politicians would hold video conferences instead of FLYING to climate change conferences.

    …there would be a wind farm off Hyannis Port.

    …we would be be investing 900 billion dollars on nuclear reactors instead of stimulus help

    …Al Gore would move to a MUCH smaller home.

    Like

  5. This guy makes a great point (http://tinyurl.com/yhx9juw). They are using the same playbook as evolutionists. Pathetic.

    “And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW [anthropogentic global warming] can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.”

    Where have I heard that sort of thing before?

    Like

  6. To all those folks that drive their mega mileage vehicles I say, Thank You!

    It leaves me with more to burn in my hot rod which, at best, gets about 5 or 6 miles to the gallon!!

    There ain’t NOTHIN’ like the feel of 600 horse power on your butt in the driver’s seat!

    Like

  7. The core “belief” (and yes, it is faith based) is that scientists not only understand global climate sufficiently to accurately model it, but :

    1) We should invest trillions of dollars away from other needs that would positively impact/save lives today to avoid the threat of global warming down the road

    2) We not only understand the climate but we also know with certainty we can change it.

    And finally the most important “belief” of all:

    3) Despite the known facts that the world has been hotter in the past than present day and it has been colder in the past than present day – the current temperature is the only livable option and anything else leads us to doom. Our only choices are to maintain current temperature or face doom. Spending billions of dollars to adapt to global warming is not an option. The only option is to spend trillions of dollars to prevent it.

    Like

  8. From the article in the first link:

    If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW.

    Lol – yes, please do. I’ll buy them up when they hit rock bottom and sell them back to you when the oil runs out, you stupid git.

    Like

    1. Yeah when articles start telling you which industries to invest in, one wonders who is backing the article. You could buy all the alternative energy companies with just the money in Exxon’s global warming debunking budget.

      You guys have been taken. I’ll read the alternative viewpoints, as I said earlier, but I’ve been looking online for books, and almost every one I’ve found is written by a scientist paid directly by an oil company, and rarely with a specialty in the field. Tell me why that should not raise flags for me.

      I’ll read Michael Crighton’s paper as well, but he does not seem to deny that global warming exists. He seems to say (and I’m not done yet) that we just don’t have the money, or capability to stop it, and it’s not going to be all that bad. That’s not exactly debunking the theory.

      Like

      1. So, if a scientist receives oil money he can’t be trusted?

        But if a scientist receives government money he can be trusted?

        Like

      2. If there is a skewing of the data based on one source on funding, which there most certainly is, it usually means that something is not right, on one side or the other. We have a situation where the majority of scientists are being told they are wrong by a small number of scientists with one source of funding.

        Like

      3. No you didn’t. Some hacker weeded through 13 years of emails and found some wrongdoing. I suppose your record over the years is perfectly clean, but the rest of us make mistakes some of the time.

        Nothing in those emails refutes any science, it just shows that some people were unethical in promoting it. It’s all still relevant.

        Like

      4. I suppose your record over the years is perfectly clean, but the rest of us make mistakes some of the time.

        How pathetic. First, I’m the first to admit that I’m a sinner in need of a Savior every day of my life. But multi-trillion dollar scams and massive government controls based on fraudulent scientific data aren’t on my list of misdeeds.

        Second, they didn’t make “mistakes,” they committed fraud. Not sure why you are trying to cover for them . . .

        Like

      5. Why do they need to “hide the decline” if there is no decline?

        Either they lied, and there is a decline…

        or their initial research was wrong, and there is no decline, but all our measuring techniques are wrong.

        Either way, these scientists have revealed the hoax.

        Which is it Ryan, is there a decline or isn’t there?

        Like

      6. They need prevent the myth that the Earth has been getting cooler from reaching the media because it undermines the actual truth. Temperatures have risen and fallen over the past 10-15 years, but the trend is most definitely still upwards. Ask a farmer about average night-time temperatures and whether or not they are going up or down. Come to my neck of the woods, where the pine beetle is ravaging our forests for the first time in history because the temperature no longer goes below zero for long enough to kill the larvae. Ask people who know what they are talking about, rather than Fox News pundits and Oil Executives

        http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html

        What I’m wondering is – which is your argument? Is the Earth cooling or is the Earth getting hotter because of naughty sun spots? I’ve heard both touted as solid truth by the global warming deniers.

        Like

      7. Do you regard Donald Rumsfeld’s “Known unknowns” quote as an expert quote on statistical analysis?

        Because the authors of Brohan et al 2006 do.

        I could go on, but the charts are useless without the data that created the charts. Which is part of this whole controversy. Not only do these emails show a refusal to release data, but internal decisions to destroy all the data before ever releasing it to the public.

        And now that we have access to SOME of the programs used by these folks, we are able to see how shoddy the calculation making process was. Have you read any of the links I’ve provided, especially in regards to the computer code?

        Especially since the now-available information shows that the data was having artificial, ad hoc and arbitrary changes made to it not based on any scientific process.

        Finally, using charts that rely on information that is now seriously called into question (because it explicitly states it is relying on the rigged CRU data) doesn’t exactly make the point you are trying to prove.

        Like

      8. “You guys have been taken.”

        Actually I believe we do not know enough about man’s contribution to global warming. The models missed the recent temperature decline. They models keep being adjusted. Why the temp decline if the science is so “settled” and people are being paid by the oil companies to hide the truth? It wasn’t the doubters who missed the temperature decline – it was the very people claining the science is settled and man made global warming is fact .

        Don’t you think before we invest trillions of dollars dramatically impacting people worldwide on trying to avoid global warming we should insure the science is at least tracking properly against forecasts?

        Like

      9. So if the temperature didn’t decline, you would be on board with this?

        Why is investing trillions of dollars bad when it’s for sustainable resources, but good when it is for “good american jobs”. I thought investment created jobs, income, and wealth.

        We need to invest this money either way, and it needs to be in clean, sustainable energy. I think the best thing to invest in is things that require less energy to produce, and less energy to run.

        Like

      10. They’re all frauds now because of a people breaching some ethical guidelines? Is that fair?

        I guess that makes all ID people frauds due to Ray Comfort’s silly banana example.

        Like

      11. Wow, reason takes a holiday . . .

        They aren’t all frauds, but enough of them were.

        Ray Comfort made a mistake. That isn’t a lie. Oh, and he quickly and graciously apologized for it. I’m sure the AGW and evolutionist fraud bullies will do the same.

        Like

      12. Ray Comfort made the mistake of pretending to be a scientist, which is fraud. He did apologize, and I give him credit for that.

        We are talking about a few scientists from one institute. You are making it sound like that means they are all liars.

        Like

      13. Was going to comment on that so-called apology, but then it occurred to me that I’m having a fun evening and I really don’t want to think about Ray Comfort.

        Like

      1. We will eventually run out of oil and coal. Yes, if the price goes up we can go deeper to get it out, but that assumes we’ll still be willing to pay for it and ultimately it’s cheap energy that drives economies. I’m all for nuclear power, by the way. Here in Ireland it has traditionally been a no-no, but that’s just because the British are doing it. We’re quite happy to share the power that comes in via the inter-connector, much of which is nuclear in origin.

        Like

      2. Is it all about the money? What about the destroyed water supplies and lakes caused by pulling oil out of the sand in Alberta?

        I couldn’t care less how much oil in in the Earth. I’m sick of breathing it in.

        Like

      3. As I’ve made clear, I’m totally OK with nukes. That would reduce fossil fuel consumption in a hurry. Please talk to your Green buddies about that.

        Like

      4. I’m OK with nuclear power too, but I think that our future hold far better options, like wind, solar, and geothermal, all of which have proves cost-effective somewhere in the world.

        Like

      5. I hadn’t heard of solar or wind being cost effective anywhere. Geothermal is intriguing. A friend described that once and it sounded like it could be compelling for air conditioning costs once it was mainstream.

        Like

      6. A few destroyed lakes and water supplies, while tragic, actually are worth the wealth pulled from them. Land reclamation enforced by provincial law, and all of the lakes contaminated by the tailings ponds in the Athabasca region will and are being cleaned to government standards. Sorry if that sounds like PR talk, but as someone who works in the field, this is exactly what is happening.

        Like

  9. This article hits the nail on the head. Global Warming and Evolution have both been proclaimed as settled unquestionable science, and arguments against them have been swiftly shut down. Much evidence has been touted but it’s all hollow.
    Now that one emperor has been shown to have no clothes, we can only hope that the public begin to question the other.
    Naturally many GW proponents are urging people to keep believing despite this ‘setback’. The same thing has already happened with Evolution time and time again: evidence has been shown to be faulty or not to fit the evolutionary hypothesis time and time again but people keep believing it because of its reputation. And of course because they don’t want to face the Truth.

    Like

  10. OK, this is hilarious.

    The Oil companies, led by Exxon Mobile and others (rightly or wrongly) are pushing the idea that the Earth is actually cooling, and that Global Warming is a myth.

    Well, now the Canadian government is being asked to spend millions of dollars to protect the ice roads and gas pipelines in the Arctic that these companies depend on to move their products. Why do they need to be protected? Because the ice they are built on is now melting.

    What to do… What to do…

    http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE5AP0IB20091126

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s