The politics of ‘trust us’ is wearing thin

We’ve reached a moment of truth for the climate-change debate, which is a good thing since “the truth” is what everyone has been screaming about all along.

Last week, someone released thousands of emails and other documents from the highly influential Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England. I say “someone released” because it’s unclear whether the deed was done by an outside hacker, an inside whistleblower or someone else.

In any case, the contents are staggering.

Now on display are the scientists’ apparent attempts to manipulate climate data to fit their narrative of an ever warming planet. So, too, are their schemes to withhold and even delete documents sought under Freedom of Information laws, as well as to prevent contrarian researchers from publishing work in scientific journals and United Nations climate-change reports.

Then there’s the plainly incoherent climate data at the heart of their work, as described by the poor computer programmer tasked with compiling it in a database upon which governments around the world depend.

So far there have been no protests from the scientists or the university that any of the information was falsified, only laughably weak attempts to act as if none of it is terribly important.

Yet this episode obliterates the public credibility once enjoyed by these scientists. And these are not just any scientists: Their work has been integral to the reports of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the related push for legal restrictions on carbon emissions. It is hard to imagine what they could do to re-earn such prominence and trust.

This new information is extremely timely, because next month the U.N. will meet in Copenhagen with hopes of drafting a climate-change treaty that would regulate trillions of dollars worth of global commerce.

Any new treaty would be based in no small way on the work of the scientists involved in the present scandal. The only responsible option is to postpone the Copenhagen agenda while this new information is digested.

Yet as critical as the climate-change debate’s outcome is to our future, this story has even broader significance than that. For it fits the running theme of 2009’s big news stories: truth versus “trust us.”

In the past year-plus, the politics of “trust us” has brought Americans bailouts for Wall Street and Detroit, a $787 billion stimulus bill, and health “reform” bills with cost estimates about which the estimators themselves are skeptical.

This is a partial list. The politics of “trust us” is wearing thin.

The trust deficit, if not the budget deficit, was supposed to be made whole once George Bush left office. Yet the Obama administration, rather than operating with the promised transparency, has been burning through public trust as fast as it’s been spending real currency.

The administration’s attempts to restore this trust keep falling flat. Look no further than the job-creation statistics the White House rolled out to show the stimulus was working. Journalists and bloggers doing basic fact-checking uncovered wild inflation in these figures, including hundreds of phony jobs in non-existent congressional districts.

The politics of “trust us” points to one of the most fundamental arguments for limited government. When government is involved in activities it can’t account for, it is too big.

Like the East Anglia crew, it doesn’t matter whether big government is intentionally deceptive or just incompetent. The result is the same: We just can’t trust it.


Find me on Facebook.

256 comments Add your comment


November 27th, 2009
7:38 pm

Testimony of Richard C. Levin
President, Yale University
Committee on the Environment and Public Works
April 3, 2008

“The Panel concluded that, in the absence of corrective measures, global temperatures are likely to rise between 1 and 6 degrees centigrade by the
end of this century, with the best estimates ranging between 2 and 4 degrees.”

Actually Richard, your a bit high but very close, but I think it will be about 1.95 degrees (2.6 * 0.75);

The human contribution to global warming:

valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor



That code is from the IDL program:


Those numbers where typed in by a human to adjust the results of the data.
They are not from the data.

Those number may be the cause of human induced global warming.


November 27th, 2009
8:14 pm

I agree Kyle the last time we trusted, we got a WAR, bailout the Rich, and now listen to you about pollution is OK.

Mike O'Brien

November 27th, 2009
8:57 pm

“Trust us” is wearing thin–fair enough, so how about quoting the emails that you have characterized as demonstrating a plot among scientists? Why should we trust your interpretation?


November 27th, 2009
9:30 pm

Kyle, thanks for having the fortitude to state what your employer will not. The global warming scam is a huge story, but so politically charged those weak in the knees are not yet touching it. To do so would point out another failure of the Obama administration – he is ignoring the story and proceeding as if it does not exist. Sadly, if a pop idol is drunk in public, the people, AJC, and major media can’t quit talking about it. But when a socialist scheme to take America’s wealth is exposed (and have no doubt that is exactly what the global warming scheme is), too many pay it little attention and the AJC finds it politically correct to ignore.

erik simpson

November 27th, 2009
10:58 pm

Ken Cruce

November 28th, 2009
12:07 am

I don’t pretend to understand the science of climate change. But, I am interested in the politics of how climate science is applied to influence governmental policy. Further, the mass media spin on the release of emails and code from East Anglia could serve as a case study on what not to do to convince the public that a problem looms.

From the outset, it did not make sense to me that the distribution of these files was the result of a hack. The emails and code samples pointed to the likelihood that it was an internal whistleblower who had released the files. So, there was no theft of files, no hack, but rather someone on the inside at East Anglia University who believed strongly that the world should know more about what the academics were talking about.

Then, clicking on some links, I saw another explanation which seems even more likely. Steve Milloy, publisher of, says it has become fairly obvious this archive was not “hacked” or “stolen” but rather is a file assembled by CRU staff in preparation for complying with a freedom of information request. Whether it was carelessly left in a publicly accessible portion of the CRU computer system or was “leaked” by staff believing the FOIA request was improperly rejected may never be known but is not really that important.

Milloy says:

– There was no “security breach” at CRU that “stole” these files
– The files appear genuine and to have been prepared by CRU staff, not edited by malicious hackers
– The information was accidentally or deliberately released by CRU staff
– Selection criteria appears to be compliance with an or several FOIA request(s)

Most of the blogger comment on this issue has focused on the emails. I believe there is more potential to prove a scandal in the documents containing the code used by the proponents of global warming. For example, here’s something I noticed in a random view of one of the climate analysis programs:

yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+190 4]

valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0 .25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1 .7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0. 75 ; fudge factor

Look at that ! The programmer actually calls it a “fudge factor”.


November 28th, 2009
3:01 am

For most of this week I like most minded people have been completely absorbed by the revelations coming from the e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at The University of East Anglia. Given the lack of reporting from the “trusted” alphabet soup of news organizations, ABC,CBS,CNN,BBC we have ourselves read the e-mails and inspected the notes in the code. My understanding is that the CRU headed by Dr Jones supplied the data in their possession to the United Nations IPCC to support the UN goal of implementing Cap and Trade legislation on the whole world in order to combat a man made contribution to the destruction of the world. A “if we do not act quickly there is no hope scenario” much like the financial bailouts No Time to Think Trust Us This is TOO BIG TO FAIL! Trust is what the e-mails from the CRU speak to and manifest. How can I trust the data used to create the theory that Global Warming was man made and not influenced more by an object 93 million miles away that constitutes 99% of the mass of the solar system and in which we live, in its “atmospheric influence”, recognizing that it only takes 8 min for the warm to reach us. All we ever asked for was Show Us the Math!, well we have seen the math and we have seen collusion, and we have seen stifling of criticism or inspection, and we have seen the trick of adding real temps where your code fails so that anyone else that has records from 1961 on cannot refute your algorithm, and we have seen willful and criminal misuse of US taxpayers money (Roger’s missed trip and all the stuff you did not buy that US hardworking and suffering taxpayers paid for through the NOAA), and we have seen the deliberate destruction of evidence in the face of Freedom of Information Act requests. I am more concerned about what we have not seen. I have not seen or heard a peep from Al Gore. I still see the President of the United States prepared to agree to putting a greater burden on the US taxpayer in the now unfounded belief that somehow man was responsible for this last period of warming that certainly ended more than 10YEARS AGO! Hide the decline my great-mother! I as a law abiding tax paying citizen of the United States Demand a Federal Investigation of this matter Climategate!

John A. Jauregui

November 28th, 2009
3:21 am

Stop bitching, take responsibility and take action. Stop all donations to the political party(s) responsible for this fraud. Stop donations to all environmental groups which funded this Global Warming propaganda campaign with our money, especially The Environmental Defense Fund. Write your state and federal representatives demanding wall to wall investigations of government sponsored funding and coordination of this and related propaganda campaigns and demand indictments of those responsible. Write your state and federal Attorneys General demanding Al Gore and others conducting Global Warming/Climate Change racketeering and mail fraud operations be brought to justice, indicted, tried, convicted and jailed. That’s what I have done in response to this outrageous violation of the public trust. Think of the consequences if you do nothing!


November 28th, 2009
4:16 am

- NASA’s Latest Discovery: SUN HEATS THE EARTH (American Thincker, June 05, 2009) – Robert Calahan at NASA’s Goddard Space Center could be in big trouble — for telling the truth. Here is a headline for an article in the Daily Tech: “NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming”… World’s Largest Science Group Rejecting Man-Made Climate Fears…
- Pentagon/NASA: Global Warming/Global Cooling… THE PENTAGON WARNS CLIMATE CHANGE WILL BRING GLOBAL CATASTROPHE… Now the Pentagon tells Bush (, 22 February 2004): climate change will destroy us… Britain will be ‘Siberian’ in less than 20 years… Al Gore Sued By Over 30,000 Scientists For Global Warming Fraud:

Joel Edge

November 28th, 2009
6:29 am

To bad something like this didn’t happen during the secondhand smoke debate. The science behind that was rigged to get the correct answer. The panic and stupidity of the general public never ceases to amaze.

[...] From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution: The politics of ‘trust us’ is wearing thin [...]

Churchill's MOM

November 28th, 2009
6:50 am

I am tired of the same stuff every day. Let’s write about women trying to fix the broken system.. The NYT has Jenny Sanford in today’s paper, now this is what I call good reading.


November 28th, 2009
6:59 am

Obama has scored a major victory by getting China and Russia to vote for a resolution against Iran. The Bush boy failed but Obana was sucrssful.

Ga Values

November 28th, 2009
8:18 am

Let’s talk locally on Cap & Trade. How are our 2 Socialist/RINO Senators going to vote. The current Cap & Trade is full of ETHANOL Subsidies, Saxby’s Son is a LOBBYIST for the ETHANOL industry. Saxby has voted for his for his son’s ETHANOL interest against the interest of Georgia. Ask the Chicken Industry what Saxby’s higher grain prices has done to them. Now the really bad news, Senator Johnny Isakson has a history of being led around by Saxby. They voted for TARP, to override Bush’s VETO of Saxby’s farm bill, and most other matters.

REAL CONSERVATIVES need to write these 2 RINOs with a request that they vote for GEORGIA not ETHANOL.

Joel Edge

November 28th, 2009
8:58 am

Good article, Kyle. Apparently there is declining coverage on this. It’s certainly got the last few commenters fired up. I’m waiting on the groundswell from the eco-nuts about favoring more nuke plants. You know, reduce greenhouse gases, save the planet, do it for the children..etc.


November 28th, 2009
9:24 am

“…it doesn’t matter whether big government is intentionally deceptive or just incompetent. The result is the same: We just can’t trust it.”

I believe history proves that no matter how well intentioned government is, it is always incompetent. Looking at recent history, Iraq, Katrina, Afghanistan, TARP and even that saintly institution Medicare,
is all the proof anyone should need that government is incompetent.

But people keep hanging on to government & looking to find new roles for government to play in our lives. Step back, take a cold hard look at both the Republican & Democratic agendas, and you will find new reasons for more government intervention in the lives of citizens. And I emphasize “government intervention”.


November 28th, 2009
9:27 am

On March 9, Obama lifted the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. He also noted that he was furthermore issuing “a Presidential Memorandum directing the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government decision-making to ensure that in this new administration, we base our public policies on the soundest science; that we appoint scientific advisors based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology.” The implication, of course, as Charles Krauthhammer pointed out, is that “while Obama is guided solely by science, Bush was driven by dogma, ideology and politics.”

I suppose we’ll now see how dedicated Obama and his administration are to “sound science,” or at least what they view as “sound science.” Surely they won’t allow themselves to be driven by “dogma, ideology, and politics” on matters that are so important to our economy.

Good column here: Science doesn’t say anything, Scientists do.


November 28th, 2009
9:55 am

Those of you who don’t think there is a larger power/financial grab going on– all wrapped around the global warming concept– are completely naive.

Road Scholar

November 28th, 2009
10:01 am

“The politics of “trust us” is wearing thin.”

After the Shrub administration, it’s about time you notice! But what if we don’t address polution, which is the basis of the global warming claims. Asthma claims are up for children. And why? Polution! More people are getting lung cancer; many have never smoked or handled hazardous materials. And why? Polution! Just look at our rivers and streams. The past floods this year has left a visual record of our society; look at the bushes and trees along our rivers. Trash hanging at the high water mark. Why? Polution!

And what happens if we do nothing? More polution! More sickness. And perhaps more global warming. What if the naysayers are wrong? How much is enough to not tilt the nature’s balance? How much is enough that the ill effects can be reversed?

Even if we drill for oil in the US or other friendly nations, we can not produce enough oil to satify a major portion of our needs. So we ‘ll continue to send our money and troops to countries that do not like us and want to destroy us. When is enough? When they own us or take us over? When will we limit the polution?

Change is hard. We need to limit our exposure . So, great consevative ones, how do we do it? Stick our head in the ground? Beat your chest and drive your energy inefficient vehicles? What happens when the world population increases? when these growing countries implement a “US” driven way of life?


Oh, by the way, the GDOT spends $15 M a year to pick up litter from the PIGS that inhabit this state. You should be pissed that we have to spend this much. You rail about the how government wastes funds. well folks this is one your backs. And how do you propose to stop, or at least limit, polution?

Repukes and DummyCrats are ALL Scum

November 28th, 2009
10:27 am

U R going ta git another “Trust Me” moment on Tuesday when the Dark Sheep in Chief addresses the Nation about expanding the war of aggression in Afghanistan, and asking us to agree to a big tax increase to pay for it. At 1 million dollars per soldier per year, we cannot afford any troops in Afghanistan. Pull them all out, but keep watch with from above, and on the ground with the human int agents we have surely developed over the last 8 years of bungling incompetence. When the rats come out of hiding, kill them from above, and continue to watch for any replacements. Do you remember the “Domino” theory that gave us the disaster know as the Viet Nam War? Well, the foolish acts of the neocon scum have created a real “domino fall” from Iraq to India and China. The whole area has become politically and militarily unstable due to our actions, and we need to get out and let the locals settle things down. On India’s Northern border, Maoist gorillas have already taken control of a large section of the area, with India planning to send 30,000 troops to reclaim the area. Oh yeah, China supports the rebels, and claims that same area as part of Tibet, and therefore now part of China. What we started in Iraq could very well result in a massive war including nuclear exchanges. Expanding the war in Afghanistan just provides cover for other nations to act across the region. Soon, civil war could rage in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and India, fed from outside by China and America supplying arms and money to all sides.

Kyle needs a Wedgie

November 28th, 2009
10:27 am

Me too! I much prefer the slogan of “Stay the Course” offered by the three headed draft dodging ensemble of Bush,Cheney,Rumsfeld, who used lies and fear to convince the American peeps that a secular Iraq was the bogeyman…


November 28th, 2009
11:10 am

Road Scholar,

Your point is well taken. Not to many conservatives would be upset with bills aimed at curbing pollution. What irks them is wrapping this problem in the cloak of global warming. The pollution causing the problems you describe on the most part are not co2 related. Cap-and trade is totally co2 related.

If this whole debate were about measures to reduce pollution there would be a lot of support. As long as it’s about global warming it will gain little traction from skeptics.


November 28th, 2009
12:13 pm

Global warming??? What stinking Global Warming? Move along folks, nothing to see here…….

Over 100 icebergs drifting to N.Zealand: official

SYDNEY (AFP) – More than 100, and possibly hundreds, of Antarctic icebergs are floating towards New Zealand in a rare event which has prompted a shipping warning, officials said on Monday.

An Australian Antarctic Division glaciologist said the ice chunks, spotted by satellite photography, had passed the Auckland Islands and were heading towards the main South Island, about 450 kilometres (280 miles) northeast.

Scientist Neal Young said more than 100 icebergs — some measuring more than 200 metres (650 feet) across — were seen in just one cluster, indicating there could be hundreds more.

Walter Cronkite

November 28th, 2009
12:37 pm

The Trust is allowed by a majority kool-aid drinking press corps with exception of a few. The Obama Admin could say the grass is blue and the sky is green and the press would take them at their word (and snub their noses at those “crazy” FOX News guys for disagreeing).

Change we can believe in? Yes We Can?

November 28th, 2009
1:07 pm

Obama has relied on “unprecedented” in more than 90 instances, using the word at least 129 times in everything from major addresses to small speeches, statements, memorandums and proclamations.

Unprecedented loss of popularity in 1 year
Unprecedented lies
Unprecedented smoke and mirrors
Unprecedented Secret Service issues and headaches
Unprecedented corruption
Unprecedented spending
Unprecedented unemployment rate
Unprecedented use of the phrase “shout out” by a politician
Unprecedented cronies
Unprecedented Czars
Unprecedented turkey

Repukes and DummyCrats are ALL Scum

November 28th, 2009
2:55 pm

Trust the Wall Street-K Street Axis of Evil??? I think not. Read this: The US public will be “outraged” by Citibank’s $8 billion loan to Dubai just six weeks after the bank was bailed out, US House of Representatives domestic policy subcommittee chair-man has said. Dennis Kucinich commented on the Dubai loan and other US banking investments as a congressional panel released a report that strongly questioned Citibank’s actions. The report, shown to 7DAYS, cites the Dubai loan as the largest of the “questionable transactions” by banks after the US government bailed them out. It notes that the loan to Dubai’s public sector came on December 14, just six weeks after the US government gave Citibank a $25 billion bail-out.”

Hard Right Hook

November 28th, 2009
3:03 pm

Now we can safely conclude that Al Gore and his $100 million dollar net worth are truly the result of a duplicitous scam.

Is anyone as shocked as I am?

Sunshine and Thunder

November 28th, 2009
5:22 pm

Is anyone here truly surprised by this? The lack of objective reporting by the MSM on this topic has been scandalous. Liberal editorial boards, broadcast news organizations and inner city newspapers have taken the postition that those who would deny global warming are no better than Holocost deniers. Welcome to the repeat of the Salem witch trials and the eugenics mania. I’m glad this will go down in history right beside those two frauds.


November 28th, 2009
5:50 pm

‘(A)pparent attempts to manipulate climate data to fit their narrative of an ever warming planet’. How Foxian, Kyle. ‘Some say’ (Fox says), ‘apparent’ (to Kyle and his band of ‘Chemistry for Non-Science Majors’ alums). See username.

‘Yet this episode obliterates the public credibility once enjoyed by these scientists.’ Really Kyle? So to this point you and your band of ‘Chemistry for Non-Science Majors’ alums (trademark pending) found their work credible or is this more Fox speak (’ the public, and by public we mean, well, us, blah, blah, blah).? How disingenuous.

‘(H)opes of drafting a climate-change treaty that would regulate trillions of dollars worth of global commerce…..The only responsible option is to postpone the Copenhagen agenda while this new information is digested’ Ah, now he shows his cards. Create a controversy in an issue that you’re sure the public doesn’t understand and delay, delay, delay. Typical shortsighted Republican.

Again, find something about which you are qualified to comment We’ll wait.


November 28th, 2009
5:53 pm

I’m amazed at how gullible we are.
People who buy organic foods, brown eggs & free-range chickens & who think they can loose weight without calorie reduction are the same people who buy into hoaxes such as global warming.
I hope that Americans will learn from this experience. We need to wise up & never stop asking what, who, where & why.


November 28th, 2009
5:57 pm

Um, Linda, is it your understanding that buying free-range and organic is for weight loss?

John Q. Public

November 28th, 2009
6:00 pm


Let’s see:

a) subverting the peer review process
b) stacking the UN IPCC
c) obstruction of the Freedom on Information Act
d) breach of university and state ethics codes

… and we haven’t even talked about the data yet.

Climate Science – the new Ponzi scheme!

p.s. – Is this what Science is all about?
p.p.s. – Who needs Wall Street when you have Science?


November 28th, 2009
6:08 pm

Andrew – the first commentator to this editorial – Brilliant! You definitively proved that these scientists created global warming by cooking the books.


November 28th, 2009
6:23 pm

Never Trust, No, I don’t. I think buying free-range & organic & trying to loose weight without calorie reduction are further examples of how Americans are gullible.


November 28th, 2009
6:37 pm

Linda, why is buying food with less additives an example of gullibility?

Lose. One loses weight.


November 28th, 2009
7:37 pm

Never Trust, when is buying food with bugs & e-coli healthy?
There’s nothing wrong with buying organic foods. Organic foods generally cost more than conventional foods. Americans are free to choose, as of now.
Most people who buy organic foods incorrectly think they are better for the environment, don’t use pesticides, are healthier, have more nutrients, are sustainable & are gaining in popularity & incorrectly think that pesticides in conventional foods are dangerous.
My point is that we buy into ideology without question.


November 28th, 2009
7:47 pm

Well, by definition organic foods aren’t produced with the use of pesticides and contrary to what you thing the ingestion of pesticides is unhealthy. Their overuse is also detrimental to streams and groundwater. In fact agricultural runoff laden with pesticides, fertilizer, fungicides, etc. is one of the major sources of surface water contamination. And, who says organic foods have more nutrients?


November 28th, 2009
8:09 pm

Never Trust, you prove my point. Organic foods DO use pesticides. Pesticides used by conventional farming are healthy & those used by either are environmentally friendly.
Some people who buy organic foods incorrectly think they have more nutrients.
Know what you’re buying & for what reason. Don’t just trust advertising, what you hear & perceive to be correct. Do your own research.


November 28th, 2009
8:19 pm

Linda, again, by definition, organic produce is grown without, that’s without the use of pesticides. Kind of the point. Pesticides are environmentally friendly? Are you seriously contending that pesticide ingestion is healthy and pose no environmental threat? Do the research? I’m a Hydrogeologist and I’ve been in the environmental assessment and remediation arena for 15 years. I live and breath the research. Ask an environmental toxicologist. Hell, ask you personal physician.

‘Some people who buy organic foods incorrectly think they have more nutrients.’ Some people apparently think a lot of silly things.


November 28th, 2009
8:28 pm

Linda, by the way, pesticides don’t protect against e-coli. E-coli is a bacterium that gets in the food chain from the application of fertilizers. Bugs reduce farm yield which is the justification for pesticides and the reason true organic produce is more expensive.


November 28th, 2009
8:41 pm

Never Trust, organic foods in the grocery store are not by definition those grown without the use of pesticides. Many pesticides used by both organic & conventional farming are environmentally safe. We’ve come a long way.
I have a Bachelor of Science Degree from one of the largest universities in the southeastern US with a concentration in nutrition & have worked for over 35 years as a certified specialist in my field.
My original point, again, is that many Americans are gullible. If you, a hydrogeologist, have been paying top dollar for organic foods, thinking they were better in any way to conventionally-grown foods, have been suckered. You are the one who is in need of research.


November 28th, 2009
8:50 pm

Never Trust, Organic foods make up about 1% of our diet but account for 8% of the confirmed e-coli cases.

Michael H. Smith

November 28th, 2009
8:51 pm

Never trust a Democrat either:

Particularly, Al Gore!


November 28th, 2009
8:57 pm

So don’t buy what’s in the grocery store (now who’s being duped by advertising-a symptom of an unregulated industry is that they can label thing any way they choose). I’m not sure what large SE university told you that pesticides are environmentally safe but I’d request a tuition refund. Perhaps 35 years later they’ve given up that Big Ag Co. funding; I’d suggest grad school.

Not Going To Use My Usual Name

November 28th, 2009
9:04 pm

I’ll care a lot more about the hacked e-mails when the oil companies release all their e-mails related to the same topic. Hmmm… It’s ugly, I’ll give you that–but I’d bet my eye teeth that the other side is twelve times uglier.

The polar ice caps are melting, folks. The largest single block of ice in the Arctic had been around an estimated 3,000 years. In 2000, it began to crack. Within two years, it had split entirely, and it continues to break into pieces.

Want to debate? Fine, fiddle while the ice melts. Truth is, the scientists working in THIS field overwhelmingly understand that the evidence points to some serious future problems. For instance, the spruce bark beetle is breeding faster in the warmer weather. “Oh, a bug breeds faster–I’m so scared,” you sneer. Sneer away, but from 1993 to 2003, the bugs decimated 3.4 million acres of Alaskan forest.

Yes, scientists are frustrated and a few of them were out of line. But here’s the thing. Whether or not you believe humans are responsible for this, it *is* happening, and humans are going to bear the brunt of it. Why would we be so stupid as to ignore it, to even exacerbate the problem?

But I’m singing to the deaf here. Y’all probably believe that the Earth is 4,000 years old, too, and was created in six days–even though the order of that creation differs in Genesis 1 from Genesis 2. You’ll find a way to explain that little discrepancy away, just as you’ll find a way to ignore what’s happening in the Arctic.

Shame, shame, shame. Y’all keep on listening to the bleating of Hannity and Limbaugh and Boortz and the other climate-change skeptical conservatives. They’ll keep making money promoting ostrich-like behavior. “If it doesn’t affect ME, and if it doesn’t affect me right NOW, then it doesn’t exist–la la la la la. And you’d better not affect ME by trying to fix it.”

Michael H. Smith

November 28th, 2009
9:29 pm

The Earth’s magnetic field is reserving. The moon is leaving Earth’s orbit and the rotation of the Earth is slowing down. On top of that the earth changes its’ tilt over time; and if all that were not enough there is still that pesky old yellowish blazing ball called the Sun which has a strange yet staggering effect on global climate change.

Don’t fret, all of these things too are surely human induced. Just give old Al gore a little more time – and a whole lot of our money – to form a few scientific peer review groups to cook-up some “inconvenient” figures.

The Earth has gone through periods of intense global warming and global cooling long before HUMANS existed on this Earth – Like were was Al Gore and these scientific peer review groups then?


November 28th, 2009
9:32 pm

Never Trust, I never said not to buy what’s in the grocery store. Buy it. Buy it today. It’s your choice & your money. My whole point from the very beginning is just for Americans to understand what they are buying & buying into, from the grocery store to political issues. We, as a nation, are gullible.
I’m very proud of the education I received from one of the largest universities in the SE US. Organic foods were not an issue prior to my graduation. My endeavor to keep abreast of the ongoing scientific research findings regarding foolish decisions & buying habits was naturally instilled in me & my job to root them out.
If you’ve been duped into buying organic foods among other foolish things, such as believing in global warming, for the wrong reasons, don’t take it out on me.
I’m signing off for tonight but will check with you tomorrow.


November 28th, 2009
9:36 pm

Linda, apparently reading comprehension wasn’t part of your curriculum. Re-read then re-post….or don’t. I agree with one thing, we are gullible and poorly educated. You’ve done a whale of a job proving your point on that.


November 28th, 2009
9:50 pm

Not Going, I hear your pain. My heart goes out to you. Would you please do something for me? Would you please do your own research? Would you please use scientists who do not have a vested (political or monetary) interest in global warming? Are you aware that scientists have been boring into the ice caps in Antarctica & Greenland for decades for over 3000 miles? Are you aware there’s a consistent ratio of CO2, dust, temperatures, etc. for hundreds of thousands of yrs.? I look forward to hearing from you tomorrow. We are all in this together.


November 28th, 2009
9:56 pm

Never Trust, You’ve proved my point again. Evidently you’ve read that self-help book for liberals which states that if you can’t argue with the facts, attack the messenger. May God bless you. Good night.