It's all in the papers!

In the movie "Contact" the President's Science Advisor, played by Bob Skerritt tells Ellie Arroway, played by Jodie Foster, that her pusuing the search for "little green men" is committing careericide and that she "...won't be published, you won't be taken seriously, and your career will be over before it's even started!"

For those of you who don't understand the sciencetific community, notoriety, or infamy, is gained through publishing your scientific finding in data in the trade journal of your scientific discipline. Then your findings are peer reviewed in which those in, and sometimes outside, your field of discipline point out the flaws of your work, or support your findings. This is where the rubber meets the road, if you're a bafoon, you will NOT be taken seriously and your career WILL end before it starts.

Recently, Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte revisited a study previously performed in 2004 by history professor Naomi Oreskes in which she examined the peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database between 1993 and 2003. She found a majority of papers supported a "consensus view" that humans were having at least "some" effect on global climate change.

However....(ALGORE, are you listening) when Dr. Shulte reviewed papers published from 2004-2007 hever found....

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

Checkmate!

Of course, you're still going to have those believing the lies; however, you're going to have to dig a little deeper to find reputable bonified scientists to support your claims. This means, ALGORE will have to find his scientists from the streets of Berkley rather than the halls.

But let's face it, if it took five years to shit can that fraud, Ward Churchill, from the hallowed halls of the Universtity of Colorado, I don't expect a purging of dogmatic jerk off professors anytime soon.

I've linked the Inhoffe EPW Press Blog below, but I also posted a much more extensive article that appeared in, of all places, the "Hawaii Reporter" in the "Skeptic's Tool Kit" section of this page.

Article: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

By: Michael Asher

The Breck Girl's Hypocrisy

Remember when you were a kid, well for some of us who lived back in the day when there was little government intrusion, your dad would tell you "Don't ever drink and drive or....." while he had a cold one between his legs on the way home from the beach? It's sort of like that.

Is anyone surprised that John Edwards is a hypocrite? I think not. I mean, this is what you've come to expect from those that profess to be liberal. To be honest, I don't even think John Edwards is a liberal Democrat. I think he's pretty much in politics as a hobby, something to kill time and feel important about.

Seriously, how can one believe that John Edwards is "for the children" when he spends $1,200 for a haircut and once told a jury that he channeled an unborn girl to win a case? The only thing less contrite than Edward's ability to talk to the undead is his position on GOREBAL Warning.

Remember, GOREBAL Warning is a "WE" problem not a "THEY" problem. So when Edward's claims “I think Americans are actually willing to sacrifice,” he really means, "WE" not "THEY." And it's awful nice that Edward's is building a high efficiency 26,000 square foot mansion. I mean, we wouldn't want him to be accused of the "carbon slavery" of his butlers, maids, and grounds keepers.

Article: Edwards vs. the SUV

By: Ben Smith

When Worlds Collide

Oh my! This is a pretty interesting read. Now of course this article doesn't specifically talk about GOREBAL Warning in a traditional sense, it is however, worthy of mention. I can only imagine how conflicted the disciples of the GOREBAL Warning movement would be as they drink cocktails at the next gathering in France at the "Cannes Film Festival."

The author's premise is Leondardo DeCrapio's movie the "11th Hour" preaches to the bretheren that deforestation and the harvesting of old growth forest is bad, which to the author is argues is NOT true, in terms of fighting GOREBAL Warning.

He argues that old growth forests actually hamper the reduction in CO2 because old growth trees do know ingest the same amout of CO2 as younger trees. He also argues that when old growth forests catch on fire, which many of them do, the CO2 that they have captured is released, reversing the the positive affects of CO2 capture.

I can only imagine the mass chaos that would ensue between the GOREBAL Warning crowd and Greenpeace. "For each tree you cut, we're going to kill a whale!" Greenpeace would actually fall out of favor as a liberal movement and villified as employees of Haliburton preaching such heresy!

As a footnote, are you as sick of the word "inconvenient" as I am?

Article: An Inconvenient Fact

By: Dr. Patrick Moore

BULLWINKLE! LOOK OUT!

Now and then you get an article that is almost too stupid to be true. The blog posts at the bottom of the article are pretty hillarious and make good reading. Of course, I could fill my post here with countless cliche's about moose, but I will refrain from such sophmorish behavior.

I wonder what the PETA people think of this?

Article: Norway's Moose Population in Trouble for Belching

Need Another Scientific Analysis

NASA recently was embarassed by the Blogosphere when a Canadian, of all people, discovered a little "accounting error" with how NASA's climatologists were calculating and reporting aggregate temperatures readings.

Put another way, the new figures show that 4 of the 10 warmest years in the US occurred during the 1930s, not more recently. This caused a stir among
those critical of the push to stem human-induced climate change.

How inconvienent is this for ALGORE?

As usual, the liberal media has to explain away the whole subtle nastiness of innaccurate data by quoting NASA's Gavin Schmidt as saying;

"The data adjustment changes 'the inconsequential bragging rights for certain years in the U.S.,' he said. But 'global warming is a global issue, and the global numbers show that there is no question that the last five to 10 years have been the hottest period of the last century.' "

Yes, it maybe inconsequential to the bragging rights of sorts, but it also leaves one to wonder, if NASA itself is wrong, how are the other data sets calculated, who's doing them, and how accurate are they?

To me, this is a "believe as your told" event; another example of scientific elitism. The message is yet again, DO NOT to question academia.

Article: Change in hottest year fuels global warming skeptics
By: Brad Knickerbocker