Man-Made Climate Change A Hoax?

Many of us have known for quite some time that this 'global warming' whining we've been hearing is just that... a bunch of liberal tree huggers complaining about how humans are killing the Earth.

In my view, I have always wondered how a mere bunch of human beings could possible have ANY effect on the 'old red hot rock'?

Just who do these folks think they are to believe that this Earth is susceptable to their smog, their factories, their automobiles and their lifestyles?

I have always thought such people must surely think a lot of themselves, to believe that THEY could actually cause harm to Mother Earth! Call me a skeptic, but man is really an insignificant element compared to the mechanisms that are at work on our planet!

The folks complaining about Man-Made Global Warming are mostly extremists, alarmists, and don't have a clue about the Earth's history.

Here's a report from Investors Business Daily - 2/3/10:

The Ruse Unravels
Climate Change:
Not long ago, we were pestered almost daily with another global warming scare. But the weather has changed.
Now, it seems, each sunrise comes with fresh evidence that the scare is a fraud.

The latest setback for global warm-mongers is a probe conducted by the British Guardian newspaper, which discovered a prominent climate scientist "sought to hide problems in key temperature data on which some of his work was based."

The Guardian, which has a history of pumping the global warming scare, looked over the leaked e-mail exchanges from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and "found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that documents relating to them could not be produced."

At the center is the familiar Phil Jones, the CRU director who's been temporarily relieved of his duties.

He and the University at Albany's Wei-Chyung Wang, named as a collaborator by the Guardian, are accused of making "apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations."

These data, the Guardian reported Monday, "provide the first link between the e-mail scandal and the U.N.'s embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades."

Researchers apparently failed to provide as a matter of public record the location history of 49 of the 84 Chinese weather stations used to generate the data.

Jones and Wang are also thought to have neglected to consider the movement of Chinese weather stations. They failed as well to adjust for the heat-island effect in stations that had been in rural regions but are now in urban areas.

"The story has a startling postscript," says the Guardian.

"In 2008, Jones prepared a paper for the Journal of Geophysical Research re-examining temperatures in eastern China. It found that, far from being negligible, the urban heat phenomenon was responsible for 40% of the warming seen in eastern China between 1951 and 2004."

A day later, the Guardian continued the serial reporting of its e-mail probe, this time focusing on the researchers' efforts to suppress the work of skeptics and critics.

Again, Jones plays a central role.
Fred Pearce wrote in Tuesday's edition that Jones "was regularly asked to review papers and he sometimes wrote critical reviews that may have had the effect of blackballing papers (criticizing) his work."

Jones also vowed to keep skeptical papers out of "the next IPCC report ... even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is!"

Another researcher, Tom Wigley, suggested in 2005 that he and his colleagues "could go through official" channels to oust a journal editor they believed to be too willing to allow contrarian opinions to be published.

Two years earlier, Keith Briffa, a scientist at the CRU, told a colleague: "Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting" a paper that was unnamed.

If the speculation that man is warming the planet through his activities were indisputable fact, why did these researchers have to fudge the numbers?

Why did they feel the need to crush dissent?

For those not keeping score at home, the result of the Guardian's e-mail investigation is simply another ugly layer of deception stripped from the carefully constructed global warming con.

In the last two weeks alone the public learned -
(1) that the U.N. claim that man-made climate change would melt Himalayan glaciers by 2035 was fiction, the speculation of one man whose guess was reported in a magazine then played as scientific fact;
(2) that federal researchers left out temperature data from cold regions;
and (3) that the U.N. was wrong in its contention that "the rapidly rising costs" of natural disasters since the 1970s is linked to global warming.

The climate change movement is losing its credibility at a pace much faster than any warming it predicted.

A quick burnout would be an appropriate, and long overdue, ending.
__________________
My..my..
Algore may have to return his Oscar?
Maybe he'll produce another slide show about all the criticism and win another one?

Maybe he'll just go away?
Well, we can only hope...