Brown: AGW skeptics are “flat-Earthers”

posted at 2:15 pm on December 5, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

This demonstrates the scientific, analytic approach of AGW hysterics to debate and tests.  Never mind that the AGW modeling backed by Gordon Brown predicted warming over the last few years that never materialized.  Questioning AGW “science” makes one equivalent to card-carrying members of the Flat Earth Society (via Geoff A and Newsbeat1):

Mr Brown last night insisted that the science on climate change in settled, and accused those who question the consensus of being outdated.

He said: “With only days to go before Copenhagen we mustn’t be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics. We know the science. We know what we must do.”

Greg Clark, the Conservative shadow energy secretary, told the Daily Telegraph the emails were a cause for concern.

“This has clearly concerned a lot of people, including myself. You need to be able to rely on the scientific opinion. It is important that we should be able to have confidence in the research,” he said.

Announcing a review of the case, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said the matter could not be “brushed under the carpet”.

“Anti-science”?  Maybe those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.  As Dr. Pachauri himself notes, the entire issue with the East Anglia CRU is that they weren’t doing science, but advocacy.  They conspired to silence critics, refused to release their methodology, used “garbage” data to bolster their claims, and then destroyed the raw data on which they based their models and conclusions.  What about that is pro-science?

Perhaps Gordon Brown needs to familiarize himself with actual science rather than political hackery.  Actual science gets conducted in the open, and needs repeatable conclusions and full data sets to be considered “settled.”  It welcomes scrutiny and testing; actual science doesn’t hide from scrutiny, or conspire to block it, and actual scientists don’t plot ways to ruin the careers of those who question the models or results.

Brown has put himself clearly in the “Shut up, he explained” school, which isn’t science at all.  It’s what leaders of a cult say when the brainwashing starts to weaken.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I have spoken with a couple of people who have moved from “we might as well do things to help the environment” to “maybe all of this is hogwash and we need to see some real science.” I have encountered more people who have not heard anything about climategate, which demonstrates the power of the MSM blackout.

GaltBlvnAtty on December 5, 2009 at 3:26 PM

Thanks for your reply. But the couple of people you mentioned don’t sound like they ever believed in catastrophic man-made global warming. (They sound more like the types that rationally think using less fossil fuel, less foreign oil, might not be a bad idea, maybe it will save us some money and we’ll have less pollution.)

But that is a far cry from the abject lunacy of believing that carbon dioxide will be the death of us all. And that lunacy shows no sign of waning while it is fuels all climate change “science” grants, carbon credits, and destructive economic policies.

July 10 on December 5, 2009 at 4:01 PM

Hey folks! We have a flat earther here!

JohnJ on December 5, 2009 at 2:17 PM

Very good still laughing.

kahall on December 5, 2009 at 4:05 PM

There’s something a little wrong with one’s allowing oneself to be shamed or otherwise talked into a confirmed belief in the roundness of the Earth. The understanding available to the senses, for most men, most of the time, is that the Earth is flat, just as the understanding available to the senses is that the weather is much as it always has been, throughout our lives. Accepting that the Earth is round on the basis of the authority of writers has salutary effects, but it also prepared us to accept other beliefs on the basis of such authority, including the belief that the Earth will become intolerably hot, unless we fork over our money.

Kralizec on December 5, 2009 at 4:06 PM

Copenhagen is the groundwork for a fascist world government which will act as a parasite on the backs of the working class. Government never produces anything of value, so they will have to dominate the producers of wealth across the globe. Enemies of the free market such as Al Gore and Goldman Sachs will flourish.

Meanwhile, they’ll continue rapidly printing paper money to complete the destruction of our currency, permanently impoverishing our nation (and every other one they can control).

The Dean on December 5, 2009 at 4:14 PM

The AGW crowd are acting like Tiger woods
unseen on December 5, 2009 at 3:10 PM

Do you mean to say they’re salivating at the prospect of scoring with (genuine) hookers in Hopenchangen?

ya2daup on December 5, 2009 at 4:15 PM

The white, fluffy global warming that is currently falling in the mid-Atlantic region may have an effect on healthcare reform in the Senate.

Reid was going to have an afternoon session (and another one tomrorrow), but since the snow is melting when it hits the sidewalk (at least in Philly), and will soon freeze when the sun goes down, one wonders how long Reid can keep them in session. Lieberman, being an Orthodox Jew, would not ride in or drive a car today, so was going to walk from Georgetown.

Wethal on December 5, 2009 at 4:15 PM

Gordon Brown is a dumb@$$.

Danny on December 5, 2009 at 4:16 PM

And to you sir Brown.AGW believers are flatliners you know brain dead.

thmcbb on December 5, 2009 at 4:16 PM

Kralizec on December 5, 2009 at 4:06 PM

And yet:

(Since the Ancient Greeks)…”there never was a period of “flat earth darkness” among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth’s roundness as an established fact of cosmology.”

July 10 on December 5, 2009 at 4:16 PM

If it were settled, we wouldn’t need a goreload of politicians running around telling us how settled it is. It’s not like the left is raising trillions of dollars to convince the public that 2 plus 2 is 4. That’s settled science, Gordy – not this crap. The fact that you used “settled” and “skeptics” in the same breath might raise a red flag, eh, flathead?

Ronnie on December 5, 2009 at 4:27 PM

We also don’t need a scientific consensus about the effects of gravity or the effects of botox shots on an unnamed House Speaker. Former PM Blair purposefully put the hack Gordon Brown as successor to assure Blair’s legacy (i.e. that Brown would be so mediocre that Blair would forever look like a giant). The same game that Obama has played with Biden.

eaglewingz08 on December 5, 2009 at 4:41 PM

I believe the recording of Gordo’s words was garbled; what he actually said was, “Andrew Sullivan is a fat-Birther”.

ya2daup on December 5, 2009 at 4:44 PM

When?

July 10 on December 5, 2009 at 3:54 PM

wiki is NOT the place to go for information. Infested with liberal idiots trying to rewrite history as we know it

unseen on December 5, 2009 at 4:49 PM

We know the science.

And thanks to these emails, we know that “the science” is rife with fraud, lies, and censorship.

If your science relies on fraud, it isn’t science.

rvastar on December 5, 2009 at 4:50 PM

There is too much money and power at stake for these bureaucrats to back off. The science has to be “settled” or a lot of their pork will evaporate. Telling them what real science is, is not going to matter to them, they will just go “lalala I can’t hear you.”

The only way to pry them loose is by people with an equivalent amount of power, who have a stake in the money being spent differently, or the power transferred in another direction. We can do this, still having some control over our elected representatives. Britain and the Euros? I dont know.

YehuditTX on December 5, 2009 at 4:54 PM

Given that Brown and his ilk are the ones who want to stop the science from progressing further, I think that he is a member of the religion of “flat earthers” and Algore is the cheif priest.

gstrickler on December 5, 2009 at 4:56 PM

All the idiots – Brown and Obama et al are going to the Dopenhagen Climate Summmit.

I hope they freeze their balls off.

txdoc on December 5, 2009 at 5:05 PM

I guess the MET Office which is conducting year review and re-establishment of the temperature records for the past 160 years is also a flat earther institution according to Blair. The MET Office should just ignore Climategate and use the doctored figures from East Anglia too. Indeed, the IPCC which is also conducting a review must contain those damnable flat earthers as well, likewise the University of Pennsylvania, which is conducting a review of Michael Hockey Puck Mann.

We will not sweep this under the rug, especially since it is likely that once Climategate broke open many of these socialist ‘scientists’ in favor of AGW have dumped their incriminating data down the memory hole. Anyone who has time and who are near live tv station programs (like goodday new york, today shows, etc., should join the outside crowds with homemade signs urging the shows to investigate Climategate. Indeed just putting up Climategate signs or putting up a sign, I’m from University of East Anglia, home of Climategate, would definitely be an eyecatcher and might spur some of the audience watching these liberal shows to do computer searches on the subject.
The more people who are exposed to this the larger our side will grow.

eaglewingz08 on December 5, 2009 at 5:11 PM

PM Brown and the Climategate deniers are giving ‘flat earthers’ a good name.

eaglewingz08 on December 5, 2009 at 5:15 PM

wiki is NOT the place to go for information. Infested with liberal idiots trying to rewrite history as we know it

unseen on December 5, 2009 at 4:49 PM

Agreed. Nonetheless, the Myth of the Flat Earth, is a fable used to impugn pre-modern civilization. The Ancient Greeks understood Earth to be spherical.

You could read this instead of wikipedia, if you’d like.

July 10 on December 5, 2009 at 5:17 PM

Yeah well, let Gordon pick up the tab then, I want to be left the hell alone.

I hear Al Gore is set to become the world’s first emissions billionare, thanks to some scheme cooked up by him and his friends at the UN. The man has a carbon footprint larger than some small towns but he will make billions trading air.

and they wonder why we are skeptical.

Terrye on December 5, 2009 at 5:21 PM

Fabian Socialist POS.

Firefly_76 on December 5, 2009 at 5:23 PM

Please UK, vote this goof ball out of office.

stefano1 on December 5, 2009 at 5:24 PM

How many other issues would Mr. Brown and Baroness Thatcher agree?

July 10 on December 5, 2009 at 5:29 PM

Brown: AGW skeptics are “flat-Earthers”

Oh go sell the other half of the British people’s gold at bottom dollar, you stupid fool.

Rae on December 5, 2009 at 5:29 PM

Let’s see…the last attempt to enforce religious orthodoxy was called…Oh, wait, I remember…the Inquisition! Best not question established doctrine lest a heavy price in treasure, reputation and life be forfeited. Off with ye to the comfy chair!

What the sneering, cool kids in the back of the AGW classroom don’t get is that they are, in fact, the ones with a cosmological hang-up, and the skeptics are the Galileos subject to being strung up in some political dungeon.

This is no less a breach of faith with the truth than the Church’s attempts to enforce a world view at the end of the middle ages. We all know that didn’t end well.

ObjectionSustained on December 5, 2009 at 5:39 PM

Even Gavin Schmidt has an essay up at RealClimate saying that it is wrong to say climate science is settled. Listen up Al and Gordon. He is playing a bit more of an artful dodger on the question of whether “confident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted.”

John E. on December 5, 2009 at 5:46 PM

July 10 @ 4:01
You are right about the people to whom I was referring, but there are a lot of Americans with that attitude. Moving them off that position changes in their mind the cost-benefit analysis of cap and trade. Stopping that bill would be a significant reduction of the damage that the crazies are attempting to inflict on our country.

GaltBlvnAtty on December 5, 2009 at 6:38 PM

This comming from the same guy that sold the UK gold at an all time low.

Octavia on December 5, 2009 at 6:47 PM

Gordo had better look at what just happened in Australia. His government might be the next to fall.

GarandFan on December 5, 2009 at 6:58 PM

No fair. I’ve been calling you ‘necks flat-earthers for YEARS. In any case, it’s another MIssion Accomplished!

simplesimon on December 5, 2009 at 7:08 PM

Does Copenhagen have any kind of walls? Gates? Y’know, old-style fortifications? Is there any way to lock up all these guys there for about a decade? Just wait until Rudd, Obama, Brown, and the whole lot are in there and close the gates. Keep them there until their home countries can call an election and replace them.

I guess in our case Obama would have to stay there three years.

It worked for Honduras, it can work for us.

JEM on December 5, 2009 at 7:29 PM

GarandFan – The Australian government has not fallen. Rudd is still PM. Unfortunately.

What DID happen was that the Liberals – the center-to-middle-right party – threw out their leader, hardcore warmist Malcolm Turnbull, who’d been giving reacharounds to the Labor party over its Emissions Trading Scheme (Turncoat’s a Goldman Sachs flack who undoubtedly saw money in trading air) and was generally…well, picture Lindsey Graham as Senate Minority Leader. Not much opposition in that Opposition.

They skipped his heir apparent, a lukewarmist named Hockey (bad omen, that) and went to Tony Abbott, a guy considered a bit far right by Aussie standards but a guy who was willing to stand up and actually stand for something. He immediately called for a sense-of-the-party vote on the ETS and got a resounding mandate to oppose it. No waffling.

The press immediately started clamoring that the Liberals had shot themselves in both feet and the scrotum, that they were going down, down, down, and that you’d see the results almost immediately with today’s by-election to replace a couple retiring Liberal legislators. Instead, the Liberals held both seats, even gained a tick on their historical vote percentage in those districts.

Labor still has the government, but they’ve got to hear the cutlery being sharpened behind their backs right now.

JEM on December 5, 2009 at 7:39 PM

Oh, and for more on the Australian situation visit Andrew Bolt and the indispensable Tim Blair:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/

It seems even the normal, everyday press is starting to notice that people aren’t running away from the Liberals in disgust since they came out against the ETS.

(not an Aussie, just happen to think it’s an interesting and fun place…)

JEM on December 5, 2009 at 7:47 PM

No fair. I’ve been calling you ‘necks flat-earthers for YEARS. In any case, it’s another MIssion Accomplished!

simplesimon on December 5, 2009 at 7:08 PM

Go choke your chicken. It’s simple

Yoop on December 5, 2009 at 7:48 PM

Talk about self-pity? He should read the editorial from Nature:

“If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts. Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for researchers facing such a burden.”

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html

pedestrian on December 5, 2009 at 2:30 PM

I saw an editorial in New Scientist that referred to the

‘hacking of the emails as the culmination of a concerted attack by data terrorists’

agmartin on December 5, 2009 at 7:59 PM

Mr Brown last night insisted that the science on climate change in settled

…if by ‘settled,’ he means ‘they couldn’t prove it scientifically, so they settled for lying about it.’

James on December 5, 2009 at 8:00 PM

So, Brown sides with the fraudsters.

BottomLine5 on December 5, 2009 at 8:01 PM

I guess his copy of “An Inconvenient Truth” was formatted for European DVD players.

Nosferightu on December 5, 2009 at 8:23 PM

I just ordered a gyroscope from Edmund Scientific for twelve bucks last night (no, really I did). When it arrives and I spool it up, I’ll have more real science spinning on my finger tip than the whole lot of the AGW wankers.

Big John on December 5, 2009 at 8:31 PM

I suggest Gordon Brown, as well as the other AGW believers such as Al Gore, take a science course where they teach a little thing we true scientists call “the scientific method”. Then maybe the might recognize the difference between what the AGW “scientists” (CRU, NASA, NOAA, etc.) are doing and what constitutes true scientific research.

MeAlice on December 5, 2009 at 8:37 PM

It’s not everyday that you see a house of cards collapse, and see those who built it flail away in the wind trying to keep it up…

Kinda reminds me of this.

Enjoy your moment in history, Mr. Brown.

Seven Percent Solution on December 5, 2009 at 8:42 PM

Troll still adds nothing of value

How sad

CWforFreedom on December 5, 2009 at 8:49 PM

Isn’t Gordon Brown the genius who sold off much of Britain’s gold supply right before it made a huge run up?

Oh yes he was.

“Between 1999 and 2002 Brown sold 60% of the UK’s gold reserves at $275 an ounce.”

MB4 on December 5, 2009 at 8:58 PM

Yes and furthermore, O.J. is innocent and professional wrestling is real.

diogenes on December 5, 2009 at 9:31 PM

You need to be able to rely on the scientific opinion.

The only opinions I rely upon are my own. All others please bring facts.

Vashta.Nerada on December 5, 2009 at 9:56 PM

Hey, at one point in time there was CONSENSEUS that the earth was flat. So who is really the flat earters according to the cultists own line of reason?

pageram on December 5, 2009 at 9:57 PM

Mr Brown last night insisted that the science on climate change in settled

That’s how I passed my science classes at the university… I just insisted that my hypotheses were settled.

Mr. Brown… don’t just spit out conclusions… show your work.

mankai on December 5, 2009 at 10:31 PM

Mr Brown last night insisted that the science on climate change in settled

Well it is settled as far as the pro-AGW cult is concerned. But then it wouldn’t be a cult if it were in doubt would it?

RagTag on December 5, 2009 at 10:34 PM

The only opinions I rely upon are my own. All others please bring facts.

Vashta.Nerada on December 5, 2009 at 9:56 PM

Liberal opinion = fact.

RagTag on December 5, 2009 at 10:35 PM

Brown needs to get off the drugs

bill30097 on December 5, 2009 at 10:42 PM

Ya know, you can use physics on energy balance to prove it’s all a hoax. This is what Dr Lindzer did at MIT. He was measuring the energy balance for the last 25 years to verify.

tarpon on December 5, 2009 at 4:00 PM

No fair bringing science into the discussion.

whbates on December 5, 2009 at 11:20 PM

Please UK, vote this goof ball out of office.

stefano1 on December 5, 2009 at 5:24 PM

We probably will. But the Conservatives are such a bunch of squishes it may be too close to call…people are splitting away to fringe parties. Probably will be a Tory government next, general election in march 2010, after Labour have finished their scorched earth policies but before the next set of economic results. The problem is that the British people are all for public spending cuts, just not in the areas that they happen to work in.

Fortunata on December 5, 2009 at 11:23 PM

The only opinions I rely upon are my own. All others please bring facts.

Vashta.Nerada on December 5, 2009 at 9:56 PM

+20

Laura in Maryland on December 6, 2009 at 12:01 AM

Daily Mail: The Russian government may have hacked East Anglia computers. Copenhagen would cut into its oil and gas profits.

Wethal on December 5, 2009 at 9:28 PM

If thats true , it’s the first good thing russian goverment done for the humanity.
The “attack the messenger , ignore the message” continues.

the_nile on December 6, 2009 at 4:58 AM

Brown would have been one of those forcing others who didn’t want to drink the kool-aid, to drink it.
Then he would have declared how wonderful he was for obeying Mr. Jones.

Hard Right on December 6, 2009 at 5:05 AM

When you question the theory of man made global warming you are basically called a heretic. The late Michael Crichton provided the most thorough and effective critique of AGW theory and I won’t attempt to compete with him.

Stickeehands on December 6, 2009 at 6:29 AM

Somebody please tell me that Brown has not been cut in any deals and does not have any personal investments in the Karbon Kredits scheme.

shaken on December 6, 2009 at 8:55 AM

Truly what is lacking in this debate is a few simple questions and answers..

Is it warmer now than at any time in provable/documented history?

Has co2 ever been higher than it is today in provable/documented history?

Does co2 lead or lag temperture changes in provable/documented history?

Until I get an answer to these 3 questions I will not commet myself to one side or the other.

TomLawler on December 6, 2009 at 9:16 AM

If not for the release of green house gasses I’d fully expect these clowns to start burning people at the stake for heresey like other early cults do when someone disagrees with their views.

cadams on December 6, 2009 at 9:16 AM

I wonder how much of his own money Gordon Brown has invested into this scam. I was just reading a story about wounded British Soldiers ignoring Brown when he showed up at a hospital for a photo-op. Over half of the soldiers refused to meet with him.

ronnyraygun on December 6, 2009 at 9:22 AM

No surprise, Butthead Brown has it @ssbackwards.

Keep drinking that aristocratic kool-aid, Gordon. But not while in office. Pay for it yourself, scabby addict.

maverick muse on December 6, 2009 at 9:35 AM

Brown has put himself clearly in the “Shut up, he explained” school, which isn’t science at all. It’s what leaders of a cult say when the brainwashing starts to weaken.

Yikes… then the killing starts!

Where does one get the actual card to become a card carrying flat earther anyway? I mean the ground around my house is fairly flat. Actually I must be a bumby earther. I do believe in hills and valleys.

petunia on December 6, 2009 at 10:00 AM

Truly what is lacking in this debate is a few simple questions and answers..

Is it warmer now than at any time in provable/documented history?

Has co2 ever been higher than it is today in provable/documented history?

Does co2 lead or lag temperture changes in provable/documented history?

Until I get an answer to these 3 questions I will not commet myself to one side or the other.

TomLawler on December 6, 2009 at 9:16 AM

Call me agnostic on the new religion as well.

petunia on December 6, 2009 at 10:02 AM

Truly what is lacking in this debate is a few simple questions and answers..

Is it warmer now than at any time in provable/documented history?

Has co2 ever been higher than it is today in provable/documented history?

Does co2 lead or lag temperture changes in provable/documented history?

Until I get an answer to these 3 questions I will not commet myself to one side or the other.

TomLawler on December 6, 2009 at 9:16 AM

Every question you ask has already been answered and addressed. The problem is the climate thugs don’t like the answers. FYI the answers are no, yes and lag.

darwin on December 6, 2009 at 10:12 AM

Truly what is lacking in this debate is a few simple questions and answers..

Is it warmer now than at any time in provable/documented history?

Has co2 ever been higher than it is today in provable/documented history?

Does co2 lead or lag temperture changes in provable/documented history?

Until I get an answer to these 3 questions I will not commet myself to one side or the other.

TomLawler on December 6, 2009 at 9:16 AM

Every question you ask has already been answered and addressed. The problem is the climate thugs don’t like the answers. FYI the answers are no, yes and lag.

darwin on December 6, 20

Darwin is right…Tom you have your answer. Now you can comment.

CWforFreedom on December 6, 2009 at 10:33 AM

Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology:

…….“Global warming” refers to changes in an index known as the global mean temperature anomaly. This index has increased irregularly by about 0.75C since the Industrial Revolution began, but it always shows some warming or cooling, and fluctuations of 0.5C are common. Claims of record-breaking years hinge on fluctuations of tenths of a degree. Such changes go unnoticed because local fluctuations are much larger and significantly uncorrelated with the global index. Nevertheless, when the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its statement that man was likely responsible for most of the warming since 1957, it was essentially referring to this index. The statement was hardly alarming and was consistent with Man having a small impact.

So how was the claim arrived at? It was argued that climate models could not account for this slight warming unless forced to do so, and the only “forcing” the modellers could think of was Man. Making this assertion assumed that their models already represented a major natural source of variability — the atmosphere-ocean system, manifested in phenomena such as El Niño, the Pacific decadal oscillation and the Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation.

Within a year of the 2007 IPCC report, scientists from modelling centres in the UK and Germany acknowledged that the failure of the models to predict the relatively static temperatures of recent years was due precisely to the models’ failure to adequately display natural variability. This hardly proves that Man made no contribution, but it certainly does invalidate the claimed attribution.

In any case, are variations of tenths of a degree in global mean temperature what people are worried about? Not likely. The concern is with larger warming in the future as well as melting Arctic sea ice, rising sea levels, suffering polar bears etc. For the first item, one might ask how models predicting large warming were made consistent with the modest warming of the past 52 years. The answer from scientists at the US National

Centre for Atmospheric Research in Colorado is that each model was separately “adjusted” by a cooling caused by largely unknown aerosols — the aerosols being considered part of Man’s contribution.

For the more dramatic associations, we could argue about what is really going on, about the cherry-picking of data etc, but that would be beside the point. The important point is that these are complex phenomena that depend on the confluence of many factors, of which global warming is generally not the most important. Consider the following scenario: Person A kicked up some dirt, leaving an indentation in the ground into which a rock fell, and B tripped on this rock and bumped into C, who was carrying a carton of eggs that dropped and broke. Would any rational person conclude that the best way to prevent this would be to prohibit kicking dirt? Yet this is precisely the “logic” that will dominate Copenhagen.

CWforFreedom on December 6, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Thanks darwin for your quick reply. This is the answer i expected. I know the answers you gave me are accurate.
When you say these questions have been answered and addressed I agree. But only by the people who want knowledge.

I say we must ask politicians like Gordon Brown, Obama
Polosi, Frank, Reid, Marcus, Waxman, Boxer, Kerry, Gore these same questions and make them answer. We must ask abc cbs nbc cnn msnbc and the bbc answer these simple questions and make then answer.

TomLawler on December 6, 2009 at 10:53 AM

American Power tracked-back with, ‘Global Warming Fraud an Attack on Humanity’.

Donald Douglas on December 6, 2009 at 11:25 AM

Rep Thaddeus McCotter explains empirical data and the need for such to claim that Global Warming is anything more than a collectivist theory.

Dr Evil on December 6, 2009 at 11:55 AM

Brown: AGW skeptics are “flat-Earthers”

Actually it’s the other way around, I come from Montana the hilly part:)

When do the English get to see the back of Browns head? He can’t be lasting too much longer.

Dr Evil on December 6, 2009 at 1:06 PM

ObjectionSustained on December 5, 2009 at 5:39 PMShould they come out of Copenhagen with a bunch of odious requirements, we can just call the push the \”Climate Inquisition.\”

Merovign on December 6, 2009 at 2:28 PM

Oh, sure, HA. Do that to my formatting. Meh.

Merovign on December 6, 2009 at 2:28 PM

Should they come out of Copenhagen with a bunch of odious requirements, we can just call the push the ”Climate Inquisition.”

Absolutely. And as the church was irrevocably changed by the unmasking of its intellectual and authoritarian corruption, we can start calling those of us who take the contrarian view the “Climate Reformation.”

ObjectionSustained on December 6, 2009 at 6:13 PM

There’s something a little wrong with one’s allowing oneself to be shamed or otherwise talked into a confirmed belief in the roundness of the Earth. The understanding available to the senses, for most men, most of the time, is that the Earth is flat, just as the understanding available to the senses is that the weather is much as it always has been, throughout our lives. Accepting that the Earth is round on the basis of the authority of writers has salutary effects, but it also prepared us to accept other beliefs on the basis of such authority, including the belief that the Earth will become intolerably hot, unless we fork over our money.

Kralizec on December 5, 2009 at 4:06 PM

I found your comment intriguing and it got me to thinking. Part of the problem with most of those involved in the green movement is that they put these scientists on an impartial pedestal. Scientists are people too, many of them coming out of the leftist indoctrination that many of them succumb too at the universities. They have agendas too, and it can become very easy to justify a slight “modification” of the facts to advance a cause that they may honestly (though foolishly) believe will better humanity. That said, the analogy is deeply flawed. There are mounds of incontrovertible evidence (photos from spacecraft and high altitude aircraft), whereas the “evidence” (which is in question) for AGW is entirely theoretical and circumstantial. Meanwhile, fat slobs like algore make millions from investments in the green market and hence will do whatever is necessary (including buying scientists through money or ideology) to keep the cash flowing. This is crony capitalism at it’s worst.

SG1_Conservative on December 6, 2009 at 6:41 PM

Clearly the AGW crowd does not want debate.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain…

The Rock on December 6, 2009 at 8:03 PM

Brown is really really unpopular.

Gordon Brown Snubbed by soldiers curtain protest.

Dr Evil on December 6, 2009 at 10:02 PM

Yes Virginia, the skeptics are “flat earthers”

Asimov – The Relativity of Wrong

disillusioned on December 7, 2009 at 1:00 AM

Actual science rarely, if ever, “settles” anything. It simply removes disproved theories. Sometimes there will be only one theory left unscathed, often more.

And no, I’m not a scientist, I just play one on the internet. This is fundamental, grade-school stuff.

pugwriter on December 7, 2009 at 8:53 AM

It’s really hard to tell those that advocate for this as plain ignorant or willing participants in the hoax so that a one world government can take power. Of course the latter are fairly ignorant when it comes to larger and larger governments unaware that majority of the problems were in fact created by those large out of control governments.

larvcom on December 7, 2009 at 8:57 AM

“With only days to go before Copenhagen we mustn’t be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics. We know the science. We know what we must do.”

You know the science, Mr. Brown? Then tell us what wavelength of infrared is absorbed by carbon dioxide. Show us how much extra energy would be absorbed by 500 ppm CO2 over 390 ppm CO2, using Beer’s Law. Explain to us the Maunder Minimum, and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Tell us how global warming is causing snowstorms in Houston.

Brown: We MUST stop burning coal to prevent global warming. We MUST stop burning coal to prevent global warming. We MUST stop burning coal to prevent global warming. I’m sorry, I can’t feel my fingers. We MUST stop burning coal to prevent global warming.

Steve Z on December 7, 2009 at 10:00 AM

I’ve thought more about my prior insistence that the EA CRU conclusions were never peer-reviewed. Since I’m a reviewer on scientific papers related to my field (rocket science) I understand how the process works. Let us assume there was review.

If so, why were they anonymous? I’ve never refused to admit I was a reviewer, I stand by my conclusions and I am expected to defend them, especially if they are of a scientific nature. I also keep everything given to me that is used to complete the review, especially the raw data.

So if they were reviewed, who did them? What were the comments? Were they expected to defend those comments? Did they keep the raw data? Where is it? Did no one keep a single copy? Were they also asked to delete it, and if so was there not ONE ethical scientist among them who refused to do so?

My original assertion was that they were never reviewed, and in the intervening days not one of the above questions has been answered, and rarely even asked. I stand by my original assertion. They were never peer-reviewed, and therefore, by their own standards, should be ignored.

runawayyyy on December 7, 2009 at 10:39 AM

Flat earther?

Then I suppose these man-made climate change fools believe the earth is made of cheese.

Virginia Shanahan on December 7, 2009 at 1:30 PM

Brown is a liar. That is the best one can say for this sorry excuse for a human being. He, like Barack Obama, is a disgusting person. Neither has a moral bone in his body.

proconstitution on December 7, 2009 at 7:58 PM

All these global warming hoaxers claim science, but where is their data? hmmmmm?
Do they actually have data?
Did they EVER actually measure ANYTHING?
 
I’m not delusional but I know someone who is.

Blacksmith8 on December 7, 2009 at 10:43 PM

Comment pages: 1 2