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.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
256 comments Add your comment
NeverTrustARepublican
November 28th, 2009
9:58 pm
Linda, what scientist do you have in mind? I’m assuming you have handy a list of totally apolitical researchers, not those funded by industries with a vested interest in the status quo?
NeverTrustARepublican
November 28th, 2009
10:01 pm
Actually Linda I read the book Everything an Aging Republican Nutritionist Knows about Science. Its a pamphlet with lots of cartoons. And what point did I prove?
Let them eat cake
November 28th, 2009
10:01 pm
The solution is obvious, tax cuts for the rich and a pre-emptive war of choice……
Michael H. Smith
November 28th, 2009
10:16 pm
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.
For all those who don’t know any better lest heresy be allowed to gain a foothold: Genesis 1:1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. “No length of time” was given for the creation period of heaven and earth, which ALL took place in “a timeless” verse one.
Something awesomely evil transpires after heaven and earth were created, as follows in verse 2) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Which is followed by the rest of the creation story, verse 3 onward, as so many know it.
In fact only after God said let there be light in verse 3) did he “create time” or begin keeping time, as in verse 5) And the evening and the morning were the first day.
I do hope Al Gore is better at understanding science than Theology but somehow I doubt it.
NeverTrustARepublican
November 28th, 2009
10:26 pm
Thanks Michael. You just cemented your irrelevance.
Michael H. Smith
November 28th, 2009
10:38 pm
No, I simply, though relevantly, pointed your inaptness on subjects you choose to prove yourself clueless in misleading others, Never Trust a Brucie-crat.
NeverTrustARepublican
November 28th, 2009
10:46 pm
I’d like to respond to that Michael; please re-posted it in English.
Michael H. Smith
November 28th, 2009
10:49 pm
and a pre-emptive war of choice
Or, is that a “Van Jones Truther”?
Crimes against humanity that left about 3,000 dead on 9/11 was a radical Islamic TERRORIST preemptive war that chose us.
Rmoen
November 29th, 2009
12:25 am
The released emails that many now call ‘Climategate’ underscore the need for the United States to convene our own objective, transparent Climate Truth Commission. The Climate Research Unit’s emails show small-minded, embattled thinking that reeks of zealotry, not science. It appears the researchers weren’t beyond drawing conclusions that were relatively or totally unsupported. Two of the authors, Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth, were the lead authors of one of the most important chapters in the United Nations Fourth Assessment Report. This is no small matter since the EPA, in its recent move to boost regulation of greenhouse gases, based its conclusions on the UN reports.
For twenty years I believed in man-made global warming theory, but the evidence has changed. During that period we’ve had ten years of warming then ten years of little or no warming. I blame my confusion on the United Nations for getting ahead of their facts. When they claimed CO2 drives global warming, I think they were more concerned about politics and funding than science. One only needs to look at their track record: UN forecasts do not fit what actually happened.
- Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.com
Sunshine and Thunder
November 29th, 2009
1:49 am
Well isn’t that the damndest thing? This “newspaper” finds the space to print a partisan senate report about the failure to capture Bin Laden and how it was Bush’s fault that we didn’t and how that has caused all of the problems since 2001. But at the same time there is no room to report on the climate-gate scandal. Just go figure.
What's wrong here
November 29th, 2009
9:00 am
Republican National Committee identifies ten (10) key public policy positions for the 2010 election cycle, which the Republican National Committee expects its public officials and candidates to support:
(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing, denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership; and be further
Tug McGroin
November 29th, 2009
9:42 am
(11) We support hate in the name of religious hypocrisy…..
Repukes and DummyCrats are ALL Scum
November 29th, 2009
9:49 am
Regardless of the political infighting, name calling, back stabbing, and outright cheating, the jury is still out on global warming and man’s activities as a causal effect. We know the glaciers are melting, we know the ice sheets are melting, we know the carbon dioxide levels are rising. Correlating the two statistically is one thing, but a correlation does not provide proof. Imposing massive and intrusive government rules that give small minded EPA types power over U and Me is not called for at this point. I picture all EPA types as the clown in Ghost Busters who shut down the containment grid, and in my interactions with the agency, I have found that to be pretty accurate. If U want to a small taste of the future under EPA control of carbon emissions, just try to take a decent shower with an EPA mandated shower head. I curse EPA and all their ilk every time I take a shower in a hotel. At home, I have an old style high flow shower head that the EPA scum cannot touch.
Jess
November 29th, 2009
10:01 am
Seems the only coverage of this subject in the AJC is this article by Kyle. Maybe I missed it but this is real news, and should be reported somewhere besides FOX news.
Peter
November 29th, 2009
10:05 am
Looks like Bush’s Failure to get Bin Laden, was not only calculated, but allowed them to Make up a War, and rip off the American people while bilking the Treasury.
Yes Kyle, the Trust factor has worn it’s self out, and trusting anything that came from the Bush Administration, is like believing in a Fairy God Mother !
Peter
November 29th, 2009
10:06 am
(12) Support the Bilking of America.
Peter
November 29th, 2009
10:20 am
Hey Jess, FOX news is reporting stuff so Big Business can get away with more pollution, and call it OK.
I find it amazing that the Right don’t care about their children and future generations, only money and greed.
Jess
November 29th, 2009
10:53 am
Peter,
I’m confused. Are you saying that the findings Kyle mentioned didn’t happen, or that since they do not fit the global warming scenario they shouldn’t be reported. Sounds like you prefer news sources who report all the news we think you should hear.
Peter
November 29th, 2009
11:01 am
Jess I am saying Fox is biased, make stuff up, or cut stuff out to make their claim better. The Right wing news is just baloney.
Chris Broe
November 29th, 2009
11:04 am
“Trust Us” wearing thin? We weren’t fooled by Bush, so no trust was violated, Kyle. Cheney asked us to trust the Saudis. Trust the Shia. Trust the Sunni. Trust the Kurds. It’s not about trust us. The left never trusted our enemies, even when Cheney bribed them into being allies. They’ll be our enemies again soon enough. The Right trusts in the god-we-trust on our greenback dollars. Well the left dont give a damn about a god on a greenback dollar……(grit teeth here)
Tora Bora revisited: Notice how Rummy weighed in about how the intel wasn’t 100% and how he feared a backlash. Backlash? WTF? Bush ordered him to attack, (PBS). Rummy stood like a stone wall, claiming that unless Bush wrested command from the CIA, he wouldn’t budge. Cheney was in the middle of all this, hiding in a bunker somewhere playing Napoleon. Or was it Hitler? Dammit, I always get my megalomaniacs mixed up. But Lets protect the Vice President at all costs.
It looks like the whole story is finally going to come out. I predicted that Cheney would have to flee to Dubais after the American People found out what he did for the Saudis: Employ them in Iraq. Ditto Rummy. Bush is forgiven because he gave the order to attack. It’s not his fault that his mother didn’t raise him to be a more resolute non-weenie boy. That devil Cheney wrested the role of Commander in Chief from him, and split our executive branch into two parts. That’s what we voted for in 2000, right?
Here’s cheney’s justification: If we had captured OBL, the American people wouldn’t have supported any war in Iraq, and the troops would have had to come home. The Saudis wouldn’t stand for that.
Cheney turned America into a living, breathing pile of Islamist Collateral Damage. We are now a Saudi Zombie regime. Dancing to their greedy schemes. The shame is too much to bear. It were treason, it were. (insert pirate reference here)
What should we do with traitors? I cant think of anything, nothing comes to mind, I dont know, drawing a blank here……
And what was/is the mission of US troops in Iraq? What did we win, now that Glenn Beck has declared victory over there. Is the Iraq war over? Is it? Or is there a large sleeper cell waiting for the right moment (exit strategy, Watson) to destroy whatever puppet regime we’ve set up. Gee, they’ve only been ambushing each other’s regimes over there for ten thousand years. I don’t see why the status quo should continue, do you? We’ve mutated their allegience-DNA, haven’t we? They’re no longer Kurds or Shia or Sunni. They’re all Iraqis now!
Trust me.
Jess
November 29th, 2009
11:06 am
Peter,
Ah, now I see. you would prefer the liberal media to hide news you do not wish to hear, or that they decide you should not hear. At least your position is clear now.
Peter
November 29th, 2009
11:18 am
Jess, the liberal media is not hiding stuff……..FOX is.
Judas Priest
November 29th, 2009
11:19 am
(13) We support shoving our brand of morality down your throat with the use of military force in the name of our Christian God….
Peter
November 29th, 2009
11:29 am
(14) support the Bin Laden Terrorist Protection Program.
Jess
November 29th, 2009
11:29 am
Peter,
So not covering certain news events is not hiding stuff, but covering these events is hiding stuff. I’m sure in some twisted way that must mske sense to you.
Peter
November 29th, 2009
11:36 am
Jess…..Please make some sense here. Thank you,
Peter
November 29th, 2009
11:45 am
Hey Jess…..here is an example………..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPsV6ZhL15c
Fox omitted Palin’s pure stupidity, during the election.
Peter
November 29th, 2009
12:19 pm
For the second time in just over a week, Fox News is coming under fire for misusing old news footage. The latest flap is leading some people to charge that the cable news network is intentionally misleading its audience, while Fox claims a “production error.”
Wednesday’s incident occurred when Fox News host Gregg Jarrett mentioned that a Sarah Palin appearance and book signing in Grand Rapids, Michigan had a massive turnout. As footage rolled of a smiling and waving Palin amidst a throng of fans, Jarrett noted that the former Republican vice-presidential candidate is “continuing to draw huge crowds while she’s promoting her brand-new book,” adding that the images being shown were “some of the pictures just coming in to us…. The lines earlier had formed this morning.”
However, the video used in the segment was from a 2008 McCain/Palin campaign rally. In response to the minor uproar that arose after clips of Jarrett’s report hit the Internet, Fox senior vice-president of news Michael Clemente issued an initial statement saying, “This was a production error in which the copy editor changed a script and didn’t alert the control room to update the video.”
On Thursday afternoon, Fox News issued an on-air apology delivered by host Jane Skinner:
Yesterday we told you about Sarah Palin kicking off her book tour and then we spoke to Sean Hannity about an interview that he did with former Governor Palin. When introducing the segment we showed you footage of people lining up in Michigan for a book signing that evening. In the tease before the segment, the tease to commercial, we told you how those people were already lining up to meet Palin. The problem is we didn’t show you the video we were actually referencing. Instead we mistakenly aired what’s called “file tape” of Sarah Palin. We didn’t mean to mislead anybody in that tease. It was a mistake, and for that we apologize.
The current mishap comes on the heels of a controversy sparked last week when footage from a conservative rally held over the summer was played on “Hannity” during a segment on a more recent rally. During the clip, host Sean Hannity marveled over the large turnout for a Washington, DC protest. The Daily Show later pointed out that there seemed to be some inconsistencies with the video shown on Hannity’s show, namely that the atmospheric conditions seemed to vary from shot to shot. Hannity later apologized on the air for what he called “an inadvertent mistake.”
Barely a week into Palin’s blitz to promote “Going Rogue,” media coverage is becoming its own story. Fox News rival MSNBC caught heat last week for using altered images of Sarah Palin on the air, for which they later apologized. On Wednesday, Yahoo! News reported Newsweek’s defense of their latest controversial cover, which Palin herself blasted as “sexist.”
Jess
November 29th, 2009
12:21 pm
Peter,
What doesn’t make sense is to hide ones head in the sand when anything is reported which doesn’t fit their prefered view of the world. Your statement that FOX only reports this stuff so that big business can continue to pollute, shows that you prefer to be kept in the dark about any evidence which might refute global warming.
And just to be clear, the idea that anyone who doesn’t believe the world is about to burst into flames is pro pollution is absurd. I live in the mountains, and have always supported measures which reduce harmful pollution because I have seen the results of these in the past. At times I have donated to, and supported environmental causes. I also worked in a Research lab for several years, and although I am not a scientist, I learned to recognize good research. The stuff we have been sold on warming is not good research.
Chris Broe
November 29th, 2009
12:26 pm
Fox breaking news: Sarah Palin is writing another book about the evils of entitlements like free government cheese. It’s working title is “Going Roguefort”.
There’s already buzz about a second Pulitzer Prize.
Peter
November 29th, 2009
12:38 pm
Jeff,
I guess you don’t believe man made pollution has any effect on the environment, except be just pollution, and could never ever cause problems like Global warming ?
Would you suggest the mass cutting of the Rain forests have zero to do with the warming of the environment ?
Would you suggest pollution from cars, trucks, energy plants, and factories, has zero to do with the environment, and could never ever cause Global warming ?
.
Pogo
November 29th, 2009
12:45 pm
Peter, the same argument could be made about the left not caring about their children considering the trillions in debt the leftist Democrats are piling up on them. If the spending does not stop, these children will be living with an enormous mass of debt on their shoulders their entire lives and they will have absolutely no freedom at all.
Jess
November 29th, 2009
12:56 pm
Peter,
I think some of these things do affect the environment. What affect they have I don’t know, but I do not believe the climate scientists do either. And just to clarify, this debate has not been about rain forests. It is about CO2 and introducing economy killing legislation [cap-and-trade], which is not designed to reduce CO2 but to punish companies through taxes and fees for their emissions. We have a government which not only has accepted faulty science in their quest to control these companies, but who has rewarded the agencies and individuals who are complicit handsomely.
Peter
November 29th, 2009
1:03 pm
Pogo, are you suggesting the War debt that America has, is OK then ?
Do you know the extent of that debt ? Was that war debt really put into the Bush deficit ?
Did you know allot of the current spending is part of the bailouts started by Bush, when America and the Banking system, almost went totally under as was reported ?
Peter
November 29th, 2009
1:05 pm
Jess…….. I would suggest the CO2 issue has to do with the fact there are less trees, and over all vegetation, thus nature has less ability to clean it’s self.
I would also suggest there is a need to cut the CO2 being produced.
Jess
November 29th, 2009
1:10 pm
Peter,
Trees produce CO2.
Not Going To Use My Usual Name
November 29th, 2009
1:19 pm
1) Order of creation in Genesis 1: Vegetation, animals, male, then female. Order of creation in Genesis 2: Adam, vegetation, animals, Eve. You can try to explain this away, but both of the narratives (and if you read in the Hebrew, they are quite clearly two separate accounts by two disparate authors) claim to be *orders of creation*. And they differ in order. Do with that what you will.
2) The only scientists who are agitating against climate change are bankrolled by big business or big religion. If you can point me toward some scientists who have no ties to business or fundamentalism but who are also global warming skeptics, I’ll gladly read what they have to say… but I’ve looked and haven’t found any credible scientists *in the field*. There are some isolated scientists who aren’t actually climatologists (I think there’s a prominent mathematician who disputes climate change science. Well, I’m a communications Ph.D.-in-training… so does that give me the authority to weigh in on matters in the history department? Maybe… but if my findings disagree with all the major historians’ findings… who are you going to believe? Not me–at least I hope not. Statistics, however, show that if I agree with you, you’re likely to believe me over the true experts).
3) For the record, I’m a deeply committed Christian. I’m just also not bound by the Republican Party or any brainwashed fundamentalists to tell me what Jesus would do. I can translate Greek fairly well, with aids, and I studied Hebrew (although Hebrew’s pretty tough for me–lack of vowels will do that to a reader)… and my understanding of the creation stories is that they aren’t so much literal versions of what we’re supposed to believe as they are important information about our relationships to the world, to God, and to each other.
4) I believe there’s a distinct correlation between fundamentalism (particularly young Earth creationism) and climate change skepticism. I don’t have hard data on that, though. I’d actually like to see some.
Jess
November 29th, 2009
1:40 pm
Not going to use my name…
The flip side of your argument is that the only scientists arguing for global warming are funded by the government. As this article shows, the desire to come up with conclusions which support the views of your benefactors can lead to sloppy, and perhaps fraudulant science.
Now I would not try to change your mind. I would simply say there is enough doubt about the whole issue to resist programs which we know will cripple our economy, and which do not even claim to reduce pollution. To the government this issue is about much more than saving the planet.
Peter
November 29th, 2009
2:38 pm
Jess, as a tree decomposes it does produce CO2……. but come on now, your statement is really silly when it come to trees.
You should then cut all your trees down, and tar your yard then !
I guess then your yard will be cooler ?
Linda
November 29th, 2009
4:17 pm
Peter, The global warming debate has absolutely nothing to do with pollution. Where have you been?
itpdude
November 29th, 2009
4:49 pm
Are you nuts? YOU are going to say “the politics of ‘trust us’ is wearing thin?”
It was YOUR party that engaged in that crap to get us involved in Iraq. “Trust us”, was something YOUR GOP said when asked for evidence of WMD’s.
The GOP has lost me forever and your story above, with its patent hypocrisy, is a wonderful illustration of why.
TGT
November 29th, 2009
4:52 pm
Not Going…Usual Name: It is a common error to see Genesis chapter one and Genesis chapter two as contradictory accounts of creation. However, Gen. 1 & 2 are not contradictory accounts but rather complimentary accounts. Gen. 1:1 to Gen.2:4a is a chronological account of the days of creation. Genesis 2:4b begins a second account which is simply a more detailed coverage of certain aspects of Gen. Chapter 1. This second account is not meant to be a chronological description of the days of creation. It is rather a focusing in on the relationship of Adam to the garden and the creation of Eve. This lays the groundwork for Gen. 3 which records the fall of man.
Also: As far as your statement, “The only scientists who are agitating against climate change are bankrolled by big business or big religion.” goes, consider: Richard Lindzen, Freeman Dyson, Reid Bryson, Timothy Ball, John Cristy, William Gray, etc., etc., etc. Also consider the over 650 international scientists who have not bought into the AGW myth.
Michael H. Smith: There most certainly is a length of time given in Gen. 1. The Hebrew word for day used in Genesis chapter 1 is “yom.” A number and the phrase “evening and morning” are used for each of the six Days of Creation. In Scripture outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 410 times. Each time it means an ordinary day. In Scripture outside Genesis 1, yom is used with the word “evening” or “morning” 23 times. “Evening” and “morning” appear in association, but without yom, 38 times. All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception for the use of yom?
Linda
November 29th, 2009
5:11 pm
Not Going, I don’t think you have to be a scientist, let alone a climatologist, to form an objective opinion about global warming. I have a Bachelor of Science degree, but high school Earth Science & common sense is all you need. Fifth-graders know that CO2 increases agricultural productivity & reforestation.
The question no one is discussing is WHY the alarmists/scientists are cooking their data. Always follow the money.
Michael H. Smith
November 29th, 2009
5:12 pm
Thankfully I don’t explain away anything concerning scriptures. I simply accept what is written in the creation account which many do not understand and blame their misunderstanding, lack of knowledge, study, or whatever reason: Like a so-called brainwashing of others to assert their credibility to a false account.
Not to belabor the point, though in my previous loosely gleaned over order of creation I did not expose the fall of Lucifer the anointed Cherub cast down to earth which many Scholars/Theologians attribute to the awesome events of Genesis 1:2 or the fact that Adam and Eve were not the only two humans God created. This creation of other people is made mention of later in the book of Genesis Chapter 5:2 (which again was preceded by the creation of heaven and earth for which no length of time was assigned as time itself at that point and until verse 3 was irrelevant in the sphere of eternity) thus explaining how humanity came into being as we know it. Adam and Eve were not alone in populating the Earth.
Within Theology there are many views as any Bible scholar will tell you, even more views (false ones) than these are the purvey of infidels (non-believers) concerning the scriptures. Which led Paul to warn, as well as to instruct: Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, “rightly dividing the word of truth”. (2 Timothy 2:15)
Science and Theology as it appears will continue in the age old debate, even as today with Hawking asking the big question, How did life begin? Are we alone?
Nevertheless, climate change – back to the point of actual discussion – has been around long before man in both extremes of hot and cold without any human influence whatsoever. No doubt this global climate cycle will continue regardless of human activities or any aggravating contributions made by man, to or within, this naturally occurring process.
Meantime, I’m by far more in accord with Robert Moen on this subject matter. Energy independence is the prize our eyes should be focusing on. Not only for the global environmental benefits but for our own security, economy and rush to secure a more peaceful prosperous existence upon this earth for the whole of humanity’s sake. And… we don’t need phony numbers produced by peer review, Al Gore, Liberal Socialism or Caps and Trades a.k.a. Caps and TAXES to accomplish the task.
Peter
November 29th, 2009
5:22 pm
Linda you are totally wrong on that one. CO2 is pollution from vehicles, factories, and energy plants.
Where have you been ?
I see TGT trying to explain creation, by God, explained and written by man…..Man made Religion at it’s best.
Hey itpdude …… You have explained the Republican’s to a T.
All should be amused at their saying they ” Protected America ” after 911…….Today we found out they actually let Bin Laden go free, when they could have caught him.
But hey if Bin Laden was dead, there would not be Dick Cheney’s lies…… Bin laden and Saddam were working together, which many Right wingers still believe today ……..also “Faulty Intelligence”, and “Mission Accomplished”….which we today know was the Bilking of America !
David Axelfraud
November 29th, 2009
5:26 pm
Enter your comments here
David Axelfraud
November 29th, 2009
5:28 pm
Big big trouble for Al Gore and other global warming scam artists.
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.
A week after my colleague James Delingpole, on his Telegraph blog, coined the term “Climategate” to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
Linda
November 29th, 2009
5:39 pm
Peter, CO2 is not a pollutant. Smoke is a pollutant. CO2 is not smoke.
CO2 is a non-toxic, good, pure, clean, natural, scarce, harmless, colorless, odorless gas. It is essential for life on earth.
Pollutants are already regulated under the Clean Air Act.
Global warming & Cap & Trade tax has nothing to do with pollutants. They are focusing only on greenhouse gases, primarily CO2.
You’ve been harping about trees for 3 weeks. If the government reduces CO2, which they can’t, your trees will die & so will you.
hryder
November 29th, 2009
5:40 pm
Yes, Al Gore is an unrepentant liar and people who believe him are the same gullible folks who elected the current, incompetent, and out of touch with basic economic and statistical realities associated with normal life, The Big O.
Peter
November 29th, 2009
5:49 pm
Gee Linda, sounds like we need More CO2 not less, maybe less Oxygen, and More CO2.
Yes before Man made CO2 the trees were having a tough time of it……It is wonderful that man is polluting so much to help the trees.