Friday, December 04, 2009


Have you heard about the latest scandal, "Climategate"? Basically, some hackers hacked in to the computers of the Climatic Research Unit, and distributed emails they found that showed that much of the data about Global warming was covered up, and those who had data that disagreed with the "global warming" theory were not allowed to present their data.

What really outrages me about this is that Senator Barbara Boxer, (why does California keep electing her??) declared that an investigation be launched. Her goal? Not to find out if the global warming theory is indeed false, but to punish those who hacked the computer and leaked the information.

This just confirms what I already believe, that the socialist extreme left wants to use the new religion of ecology to draw votes to the left. They don't really care about ecology, they care about the votes. A writer for the Washington Times (sorry, I forgot his name) said last night that he thinks ecology isn't just the new religion, it is the new superstition.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in taking care of the Earth. I believe we are stewards here, and that we will have to give an accounting to God of our stewardship. But clearly, there are subversive movements to use the "feel good" platform to win votes.


Looney said...

I had mostly viewed global warming as a ploy for western intellectuals to reinstate the cold war after they lost. Greens being watermelons - a green covering over a red core. On the other hand, the worship of the environment seems to be quite distinct. Is global warming two religions or one?

Nene said...

Like Pres. Hinckley said once, "the earth has enough and to spare" (sorry, I'm paraphrasing).

Mr. Giggles said...

This isn't the only wool being pulled over the eyes of the American people (and the world population?). This is just the only one where someone has won a million-dollar prestigious award simply for "trying" to do something about it!

Bunc said...

D - the foil is wearing out on your tin hat I think - time to get it replaced.
A socialist conspiracy? That had me rolling in the floor. No on does paranoia quote like the Yanks.

There are some basic errors in how you are characterising what the hacked stuff reveals.

Just for example I would be interested in you giving your evidence for your statement that "data about global warming was covered up". This is supposition.

The fact is that there are other independent research institutes - including the highly respected MET Office in the UK which report exactly the same climate trends.

The sad fact of the matter is that well-off-I'm-all-right-jack-right -wing-Christians ( by and large ) aren't comfortable at the thought they may have to downsize from an SUV or, heaven forbid, use more like their fair share of the planets resources.

The attitude against taking sensible effective action is disgustingly smug coming from people who should care more for their fellow humans.

Looney said...

Bunc, if one institution is caught cooking the data to generate climate trends, and another is known to "report exactly the same climate trends", then we don't exactly have reason for confidence, do we?

The other thing I would like to hear your thoughts on is the fact that there is now an army of intellectuals who are living quite well off of government largess, and their livelihood depends on scaring the crap out of everyone. If Christians - who believe it is wrong to lust after wealth - don't like to downsize, what do you think pagan intellectuals will do to keep their lifestyle up? The last I heard many of these professor salaries are pushing $200k per year.

Delirious said...

Bunc, I was just referring to what was reported about the emails. It was said that they contained emails that talked about how to cover up data, and they talked also about how to quiet scientists who had data that showed different results.
I do resent you adding in the word "christian" to your description of people like me who don't believe everything reported in the media. While I am Christian, my beliefs about global warming aren't related in any way to my religious beliefs. In fact, in our religion, we believe the world will come to an end anyway, and there will be many natural disasters and changes in the climate and such along the way. But what I see happening is the left using this as a "feel good" agenda to get votes. and it appears from these files that were collected that data is being supressed.

Bunc said...

D - I was making a general point which is that most of the attempts to discredit AGW are indeed coming from the Christian right in the US and to some extent in the UK and much of it is political and economic defensiveness rather than a concern for science.

I actually respect people who properly try to look at the science and question it - and so I am sure do most if not all the scientists who are pursuaded by AGW.

To describe as a socialist consipracy a scientific hypothesis which most scientists around the globe feel is well evidenced by multiple lines of evidence is not thoughtful - hence my offer of some tin foil for your hat.

Even with your tin foil hat on though D I do still consider you a true blogging friend!

Looney - I certainly agree that there is always the risk that when momney is involved that people will try to distort things in their own interests.

I would never rule out that possibility - even for scientists - the main check being that there is always some other scientist out to prove anothers theory wrong and make a name for himself.

I wonder though if you can see how maybe , just maybe, the oil industry , the coal industry and other "big industry" players might just find it in their own interests to fuel much of the scepticism. I wonder what emails we might discover if we had access to their archives eh?

The problem is precisely that the debate has become politicised and the science risks getting lost.

This is not about politics. It is about the fact that there appears to be a wide range of evidence pointing towards the risk of major climate change caused by our current use of fossil fuels.

Now - consider the following scenarios;

1) AGW turns out to be rubbish but we have taken action. Costs - a lot, people moving from old industries to new industries, new forms of energy production and distribution. Upside - a world less dependant on non-renewables which might allow our grandkids to enjoy similar lifetsyles to us.

2) AGW truns out to be right and we have done nothing. Costs - almost incaculable. Major population upheavals worldwide. Political instability and migration pressures. Pressures on food supplies as growing areas move and change and farming becomes more unpredictable. Upside - We save ourselves the cost of anything just now but potentially condem ourselves and future generations.

It's a bit like insurance. You insure yourself against catastrophes in your life because although they are somewhat unpredictable and rare events you know that if they do happen and you are unprepared then the result is terrible.

Acting on global warming gas emissions is like insurance. Sure it may turn out that most scientists are wrong. We may even take the action , prevent the warming and never be sure if the warming would have happened.

I say that's better than doing nothing and just wishing the problem away.

Delirious said...

Bunc, I think a HUGE dent in our environmental problems could be fixed if we only looked at what developing nations are doing with their emissions and toxic waste. (...China to be specific)

Bunc said...

D - I don't disagree with that but we cant shirk our responsibility either of course.