http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYxk7pnmMFw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp4sMasX-_8

This is better than the emails, trust me.

They have cost people, economies and businesses billions, maybe trillions. Not to mention brainwashing a whole generation of kids and young adults with a story based on fabricated data and faulty science. This is without a doubt the greatest scientific scandal of the modern era – spinning the natural warming/cooling cycles of the earth into a fairy tale of catastrophe climate alarmism to support their far left agenda.

There has never been a better time to for people around the world to stand up and say “enough is enough” with this crap. Spain has “tanked” their economy in pursuit of the AGW doctrine and Europe is not far behind. They should be the first to file lawsuits against the UN’s IPCC and those individuals involved to recover lost investments from the IMF until both are broken to the ground for this crime.

Gore and the AGW group did not want a debate. So we will honor that position and not allow them to debate their position at the forth coming trials.

I can clearly see the climate is changing, and not in a good way. And considering our prevalence, and ability to soil wherever we land, it seems pretty likely that ‘man’ is not helping much.

Hence grasping ‘our’ role is critical.

Especially when some hefty decisions and initiatives are bearing down on various pockets on the basis of the big ‘A’ global warming being held responsible.

Sadly this claim is now being used a lot, by a bunch of folk whose abilities as messengers have already been found less than stellar (from government to some very cooperative media) if the publics’ responses thus far are anything to go on. These are folk on record as saying that ‘the science is settled’.

And now the message they have been selling so poorly seems to have suffered… at the very least… a slight credibility setback.

Hence my concern at giving such a bunch of folk a mandate to blow bazillions into what seems very vague ‘cures’ for not yet very well clarified ‘problems’, which strikes me as precipitate.

Hence I ask questions. A lot. I ask them of the science, and I ask them of the politics and economics based on them. There are now some further questions on the science, yet the latter barrel along like some unstoppable train based on a ‘green must always be good’ magic wand that turns those with cranked eyebrows and a belief in sensible enviROI+ initiatives into deniers who hate their kids.

Or simply get ignored as the questions being posed seem ‘inconvenient’.

In my country the level of ‘move along, nothing more to see here’ from our Establishment, both government and some media, is troubling.

Especially in an era of internet communication, this is potentially very damaging to the cause of sensible, paced eco-environmental evolution. Where playing fast and loose with facts based on agenda has no place.

Einstein formulated his theory many decades ago, and people are still running experiments against his conclusions with a view to verifying it. That’s the scientific method: formulate theory, predict, experiment, check results, reformulate theory if necessary.

The people at CRU seem to have taken the heart out of the scientific method: They formulated, predicted, experimented (collected data, in this case,) and, when they didn’t get the answer they wanted, modified the data until it showed what they wanted to show, no reformulation of theory necessary, because the result was so (politically) important.

It’s my money. I don’t want to spend it on spurious results and bogus claims. If the results aren’t spurious, and the claims aren’t bogus, fine. But the data and methods should be opened to robust, independent, boisterous, universal review. And if the data has been lost, throw out the result.

That’s the only way to retrieve this situation, as far as I’m concerned, and it’s my money we’re talking about.