moonbattery logo

Jan 27 2012

Major Scientists Confirm: Global Warming Panic Is a Hoax

Major kudos to Rick Santorum, who capped a stellar debate performance last night with the unequivocal statement that global warming is a hoax. You will not hear this bold truth from his Big Government adversaries Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, both of whom can be expected to play along with this crippling swindle, exploiting it to increase the size and power of the state — despite growing awareness that it is a crock, as confirmed in an op-ed cowritten by 16 prominent scientists:

Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed. … [T]he number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

The most obvious of these facts is that it hasn’t gotten any warmer in over a decade. Global warming theories cannot account for this inconvenient truth.

Other facts are basic science like we used to learn in school. Regardless of what the politicized Supreme Court might claim,

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Since anyone qualified to teach high school science should know that global warming is not a scientific theory but a preposterous pretext for imposing oligarchical collectivism, why do so many scientists play along with it? One reason is fear.

[M]any young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted — or worse. …

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before — for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

At least in this country scientists who buck the establishment by refusing to propagate lies only lose their jobs.

In addition to a stick, there is also a carrot:

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Any global warming caused by CO2 is likely to be mild and “an overall benefit to the planet.” The global warming hoax is a pernicious scheme to rob us of our liberty and our standard of living in the name of a ridiculous lie. Only someone with the character to openly reject it is qualified to lead America.

global warming hoax

On a tip from Varla.

Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on Facebook


  • dan

    The key to man’s survival has never been in controlling conditions so much as being able to adapt to changing conditions….adapt or perish.

  • SpringTexas

    The UN is shifting from calling it global warming/climate change/climate disruption to “sustainable development.”

    http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle08.asp?xfile=data/environment/2012/January/environment_January41.xml&section=environment

  • Dr. 9

    While the sheeple slept or watched “reality” TV, Amerika has become a dictatorship. Congress and the courts have been deemed irrelevant. In other words, the people no longer count. This is the price of weakness.

    http://www.infowars.com/obama-signs-global-internet-treaty-worse-than-sopa/

  • Brian_Boru

    Amen to that, Dave. Well stated. Go Rick!

  • A. Levy

    If you tell the same lie long enough, eventually it becomes the truth to many. That’s when the purveyors of that lie get real rich. Just ask fat Algore.

  • Spider

    Global warming. It’s the new Kool-Aid.

  • AC

    SeaFoamGreen will be by shortly to tell us why we should put up with Newt’s love for the global warming swindle and the leftist hucksters behind it.

  • rogerthat

    The last major warm-up was caused by mastodon farts & neanderthal cook outs. If we keep those under control we should be OK.

  • wingmann

    I was really enjoying reading this until I looked out my window and noticed my prius had melted….crap….BRB.

    T O O L S .

  • IslandLifer

    $$ breeds liars.

  • Fiberal

    GW is an example of a disease spread by a severe liberal infection of science.

    The lies needed to perpetuate the GW disease acted much like viral DNA, replicating and spreading throughout the world. It claimed many victims and produced mutated vectors like Michael Mann (of hockey stick infamy).

    Science however is self-correcting.

    .

    The liberal attempt to destroy their host will never be entirely eliminated, but recovery from GW will leave science with even greater resistance to the next liberal infection.

  • Bill T

    Very disturbing article on global warming

    The Washington Post

    The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate, at Bergen , Norway . Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

    Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

    Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

    Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
    ____________________________________________________
    Oops! Never mind. This report was from Nov. 2, 1922; reported by the Associated Press and published in the Washington Post

  • StanInTexas

    Fiberal, Liberals fall back on science ONLY when it confirms their already made conclusions. When it does not, the declare the issue is “Proven” or “Settled” and refuse to discuss it further.

    Liberals have the same relationship with science that a wife beater has with their spouse.

  • AC

    Oops! Never mind. This report was from Nov. 2, 1922; reported by the Associated Press and published in the Washington Post

    That can mean only one thing: Halliburton has developed a time machine and sent George Bush back to the 20′s to wreak havoc then.

  • IslandLifer
  • IslandLifer

    My bad! Dave already provided the link. (still drinking my coffee :)

  • Bill T

    At least bath house barry’s anti global warming investments are starting to pay off!
    Obama-backed car battery maker goes bankrupt
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500395_162-57367228/obama-backed-car-battery-maker-goes-bankrupt/

    Maybe he needs a theme song to go along with his investments, might also be a clue as to where the bathhouse barry shuffle came from.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE

  • Belfast

    Nicely put, Fiberal.
    And it’s not only politics “infected science”, it is something new, evidence-free science.
    Politically infected evidence free science.

  • Graycat

    Spider: Human caused global warming is more like the new FOOL-AID

    http://afrocityblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/fool-aid.jpg

  • Festivus

    dan, that is what I’ve always said. Never in the alternatives do AGW advocates consider adaptation. If they might possibly be wrong about AGW and the earth was warming, wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to invest in adaptation? But this is never considered. That’s how you know it’s a hoax.

  • DavidD

    Yeah, well, Darwinian macro-evolution is not a valid scientific theory, either, but a preposterous pretext for denying the existence of God and, by extension, moral absolutes.

  • Fred C. Dobbs

    It always chaps my hide hearing these watermelon lefties droaning on about Global Warming and how “the science is setttled” and “the concensus is in.” Anyone with half a brain would realize that science doesn’t operate by concensus. If it did we would still think the sun rotated around the earth cause Lord knows we can’t listen to that nut Galileo and his crazy “math” and “science” stuff. Besides, there’s all these other wonderful “scholars” over here that agree that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Who you gonna believe, all these smart guys or one nut with “data” and “observations”?

    Science isn’t about what you can agree on, it’s about what you can PROVE. For a study or experiment to be valid, it has to be repeatable- by ANYONE. If one person performs said experiment and get’s a different result from you, clearly your hypothesis is flawed and you need to work on it more. If the data and procedures you use don’t generate a consistant result, then you’re clearly wrong and either need to rethink your results. That’s why skeptics have always questioned AGW- it isn’t provable.

    Just like evolution, string theory and any number of other theories out there- until someone comes up with a fully documented, repeatable experiment, they’re JUST theories, no matter how much we want them to be true. In time they’ll either be proven, or they’ll go the way of “aether”, the flat earth theory and any number of other ill-concieved hypothesis like AGW. Even Darwin never claimed he was 100 percent sure evolution was a true theory.

  • Fiberal

    DavidD says in a valley-girl voice:

    Yeah, well, Darwinian macro-evolution is not a valid scientific theory, either
    .
    Yeah, well,….How about micro-evolution?

    Would that fit in with your carefully-parsed set of beliefs?

  • Fiberal

    Fred,

    Particularly in the case of evolution, you should probably think about what a scientific theory is.

    Most of the time people confuse a theory with a hypothesis – the latter having to do with testable conjectures designed to extend previous observation.

    Darwin’s missing piece to his theory was the gene.

    Once the gene was determined to be the unit of heredity, then all the pieces fit together for cells, DNA and especially the theory of evolution.

    What that means is that most anti-evolutionists really have their argument with Mendel and James Watson and Francis Crick.

    But then they go on to miss that point as well.

  • RICH

    Darwin has a few missing pieces to his theory. One of them is the fossil record. His theory assumed that life evolved gradually, by improving in small increments. He saw life as a continuous chain, from simple organisms to animals. But that chain is nowhere to be found. Today we have bears, beavers, and bats that are all unique, with distinct gaps between major biological categories and clear boundaries.

    Darwin knew this so he looked back in time. He postured that the missing links have died and would one day be found in the fossil record. If he was correct, the fossil record would show literally millions of transitional forms.

    But that’s exactly what it doesn’t show. Paleontology has yet to discover this chain. Fossils show that life was different from today. Some elephants were once hairy, while other forms of reptiles were once huge.

    But those forms still fit clearly within the same basic categories today. Elephants were still elephants and reptiles were still reptiles. The same gaps that existed in the fossil record still do today.

    This dilemma was obvious in his time. Paleontology was still “evolving”, and he hoped the evidence would soon fill the gaps as more fossils were found.

    Today, fossils are evident everywhere, but the gaps still exist. It’s become quite clear they won’t be filled in by transitional forms.

    We have proof that Marxism doesn’t work. Sigmunds psychoanalysis was psychotic. There’s disagreement the speed of light is not constant. We have questions arising in Einstein’s work in gravity. Science shifts its position all the time, but Darwinism won’t budge. Nope. Anyone questioning it is immediately pushed aside as a wacko, or if a scientist, one who wouldn’t be the recipient of establishment funding. Kind of like our thread starter, ehh?

    Global warming or global cooling? It’s the perpetual yin-yang of our climate system. Any negative fear of global warming always has a positive offset. Regardless of this fact, alamists want to push for the world’s largest tax increase, with strict draconian-like government regulations. What would that do other than ushering in a new era of Marxism. We are cycling, just like the planet. It’s ridiculous. These people must be defeated.

  • Idaho Spud

    But…but Mittens Romney believes in MAN made global warming. It must be true!!

  • Fiberal

    We are a transitional form.

    It just depends on where you look: (the coccyx, 3rd/4th molar, appendix, the vertebral column and of course, genes).

    My concern is not the fossil record as indisputable evidence for evolution.

    My concern is that the folks who correctly dispute anthropogenic GW are the same folks who dispute evolution.

  • BuffaloChips

    Every year that goes by, the population increases greatly. We live much longer than a century ago as well. So, does anyone besides me even garner the fact that given this there is an increase in co2 levels just in the fact that we exhale it? We require more food which requires much more livestock. Guess what? That livestock exhales co2 as well. Increase there?

    I’m guessing the increased population does increase the use of combustion that contributes, but so does burning down the much needed rain forests.

  • TED

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy