Global Warming - The Other Side Part 2 of 7

Is Global Warming True? Is the Greenhouse Effect True? The answers are both true. But does the truth stop there?

Global Warming - The Other Side Part 3 of 7

How did Al Gore become the Global Warming Guru in the religion of Global Warming. Who is Roger Revelle?

Global Warming The Other Side

A computer programmer named E. Michael Smith and a Certified Consulting Meteorologist named Joseph D'Aleo join the program to tell us about their breakthrough investigation into the manipulations of data at the NASA Goddard Science and Space Institute at Columbia University in New York and the NOAA National Climate Data Center in Ashville, North Carolina.

I Take It All Back- Global Warming Is Real

That's right. I've been wrong. Mea Culpa.

Reports all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto unheard of high temperatures in that part of the earth's surface.

It was all there for me to see but I was just too blind to see. Here is actual recorded data documenting the melting of polar ice caps:

Ice conditions were exceptional. In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. Dr. Hoel reports that he made a section of the Gulf Stream at 81 degrees north latitude and took soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters. These show the Gulf Stream very warm, and it could be traced as a surface current till beyond the 81st parallel.

Where formerly great masses of ice were found, there are now often moraines, accumulations of earth and stone. At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea they have entirely disappeared.

Was Al Gore right all along? It's all there. Well it's all there except for the date when this report was published. You see this report was published in 1922.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Save The Elves - Build A Bear Update

Here is the update of the story I published yesterday. When we last met the elves and polar bears were on the verge of annihilation. Santa would soon lose his home and little boys and girls across the country put aside their dreams of sugar plumbs and lay awake at night worried about where Santa and the elves will live after global warming destroys their home.

Maxine Clark, founder of Build-A-Bear said, “Our intention with the Polar Bear story was to inspire children, through the voices of our animal characters, to make a difference in their own individual ways. We did not intend to politicize the topic of global climate change or offend anyone in any way.”

Here is the complete text that appeared on their website:

Letter from Maxine Clark Regarding Online Webisodes

December 22, 2009

We have received inquiries regarding our online webisodes and would like to provide you with the following information.

Our goal is to entertain and engage the imagination of children with our stuffed animals, our store environment, and online. Our intention with the Polar Bear story was to inspire children, through the voices of our animal characters, to make a difference in their own individual ways. We did not intend to politicize the topic of global climate change or offend anyone in any way. The webisodes concluded this week with Santa successfully leaving on his journey to deliver gifts around the world. The webisodes will no longer be available on the site.

I started Build-A-Bear Workshop as a place for families and children to come for a fun experience combining imagination, creativity and empowerment. I have always placed great value in the trust that our Guests have in our brand.

At Build-A-Bear Workshop we also strive to encourage kids to help others by participating in their communities. We listen to parents and kids about topics that they are interested in and care about. We especially value the input of parents. We are listening and taking all points of view into consideration for the future.

If you have questions, please contact us:

Guests with questions should contact:
Guest services
314-423-8000
866-232-7269
Guestcomments@buildabear.com

Media with questions should contact:
Jill Saunders
314-423-8000 ext. 5293
314-422-4523 (cell)
JillS@buildabear.com

Investors with Questions should contact:
Investor Relations
314-423-8000 ext.5353
Invest@buildabear.com

Sincerely,


Maxine Clark
Founder and Chief Executive Bear
Build-A-Bear Workshop


Perhaps next year Maxine can make a video addressing the mass killing of baby seals just in time for the holidays. She could have those cute little polar bears crushing their little seal skulls. That ought to put kids in the holiday spirit. Since Maxine wants to address topics that parents are interested in and encourage kids to help others by participating in their communities she might want to begin work on that video for next year. After all kids are mature enough to understand complex topics like global warming and they certainly have the maturity to distinguish between reality and make believe.

Does this mean that the elves and polar bears now have a place to live? Will Santa have to relocate? will Maxine Clark begin making her products here in the United States? Does Maxine feel that her products actually add to the problem of global warming because they aer manufactured in China? After all one-third of China’s emissions come from factories that make products to export to the West. These are questions you shouldn't trouble your pretty little heads about. After all the Nanny state is looking out for you. All is well. All is well.

Forget The Polar Bears...Where Will The Elves Live?

Remember the politics of fear. Those evil conservatives trying to frighten people. Certainly it would be wrong to frighten the children. I mean politics is something for people who are mature right?

Well I guess I'm wrong again. The people at Build-a-Bear want your kids to know that global warming is real. Well actually they want to indoctrinate your children into the Church of Global Warming? I didn't realize that the North Pole will be melted in just two days!!!! Help Al Gore HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you really think a children's toy should have a political message? Isn't it Ironic that they decided to call the video "An Uplifting Christmas Story." Should this be part of a holiday message? Wouldn't an uplifting Christmas story be something about helping the hungry or the homeless? Maybe the polar bears could realize that they have hidden strengths they never knew they had.

Keep in mind that the scientific basis for global warming projections is now under scrutiny as never before. The principal source of these projections is produced by a small group of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), affiliated to the University of East Anglia.

I mean what if George Bush had used flawed projections and lost and/or destroyed data to justify a war? People wouldn't tolerate it. Hey wait. Don't some people say that George Bush did exactly that. Weren't they outraged? Yet these same people are perfectly OK with defending global warming.

Doesn't it bother you that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals.

If you are one to follow the money, are you not bothered that Al Gore and many others in the Global Warming crowd stand to make a HUGE amount of money once Cap and Trade laws are passed? Are you aware that Carbon trading is a potential TRILLION dollar business and you need only look as far back as Enron to understand what is going on with this scam.

It appears one key player is Sir Maurice Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Wikipedia-described as “the world’s first and North America’s only legally binding greenhouse gas emission registry reduction system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil.”.

in March 1996, corporate officers concluded that the federal cash cow was about to run dry, they took action: Between that date and October 1996, seven corporate officers–including Maurice strong–sold off $15.3 million in personal shares in the company, at top market value. On Oct. 20, 1996–a Sunday–the company issued a press release, announcing for the first time, that DOE funding would be vastly scaled back, and reported the bad news on a conference call with stockbrokers.

By early 1997, furious stockholders had filed a class action suit against the company and its directors. Ironically, one of the class action lawyers had tangled with Maurice strong in another insider trading case, involving a Swiss company called AZL Resources, chaired by Strong, who was also a lead shareholder. The AZL case closely mirrored Molten Metal, and in the end, Strong and the other AZL partners agreed to pay $5 million to dodge a jury verdict, when eyewitness evidence surfaced of Strong’s role in scamming the value of the company stock up into the stratosphere, before selling it off.

So let me get this straight, these are the people I need to TRUST? Just to keep your answer honest how about substituting Bush's name for Al Gore's name and see how certain you would be that we are doing the right thing.


You be the judge. Do you think it's OK to bring children into a debate that is beyond their ability to understand? Children that age lack the maturity to deal with such complex issues and can be easily manipulated. Are you OK with that?



There is a movement a foot to boycott the company. Too bad because I actually like the Build-a-bear bears. If you believe in something strongly enough then you should be willing to risk everything. Obviously the people at Build-A-Bear feel strongly about global warming I just wished they had manifested their belief in a different way. Perhaps they could show their commitment by using only organic and/or recycled material for all their products. Of course this would add to the cost of their products but it would show their commitment to the cause.

Perhaps it might be nice for the Build-a-Bear people to commit to making their products here in America rather than China. After all China is the world’s largest emitter of CO2. Try naming a U.S. city whose air quality is even remotely as bad as Beijing’s, or an American river as polluted as the Han. Then again if Build-a-Bear products were produced here in the United States they would cost more AND they would have to provide health care to their employees.

Al Gore Reveals All He Knows About Global Warming

Then again, maybe he doesn't. Once again he avoids inconvenient questions from Journalist and filmmaker Phelim McAleer. I would think that Al would put Phelim's "silly little questions" to rest. After all, polar bears are dying. We saw the photos, they are floating away on icebergs to their death. Then again, didn't I just read the TRUTH about those photos.

Just a little problem though. In several recent interviews the former vice president said that the Climategate emails were "sound and fury signifying nothing...the most recent one is more than 10 years old." The truth however, is that the most recent email from Climategate is less than two months old

Doesn't matter though. Al is of course the inventor of the Internet and all, so he must know just about EVERYTHING wouldn't you say? Then again, didn't his own climatologist just publicly correct him? My bad Al. Perhaps you aren't omniscient after all.

Still Al should just shut that "flat-earther" up. Answer his questions. Tell us why a scientist, any scientist would destroy data.

Oh and Al don't you worry there are people out there who have your back. That's why when they disagree with what someone says they throw things at them. Very mature don't you know. Those crazy right wing loons, why they are tossing things like pies in the faces of liberal politicians that speak on college campuses. Those scary conservatives they throw fruit at people who have a different point of view. They must be afraid of hearing the truth......Ah wait a minute. Scratch all that. I just learned that it is not conservatives who do those sort of things. Would you believe it's those intellectually curious progressives? Who would have thunk it?

The Arctic Ice Free Within Five To Seven Years

Oh my God! What will the polar bears do?

Fear not our furry little white bear friend. It appears our savior, Al Gore may be, well, way off base on this claim.

In his speech, Gore told the conference: "Some of the models suggest to Dr. [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years."

As we all know "the debate is finally over" and so Al Gore must be right, unless of course he is wrong because he is manufacturing facts. You see Dr. Maslowski, climatologist, said. "I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this."

Gore's office later admitted that the 75 percent figure was one used by Dr. Maslowski as a "ballpark figure" several years ago in a conversation with Gore.

Oh an one of those flat earther guys, Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who does not believe that global warming is largely caused by man, said: “He’s just extrapolated from 2007, when there was a big retreat, and got zero.”

Well I am shocked. After all I have never known Al to be wrong about any of his data before. After all he's very precise, not a moron like George Bush. I mean just last month he told us that the core of the earth is "several million degrees."

Again am I ignorant to the fact that we are dumping hazardous waste into the atmosphere? No. Do I feel we need to do something about that? Yes but please let's be honest about what's going on. Don't point to a pony and tell me it's an elephant.

In September of 2007, there was a 25 percent reduction to the usual minimum ice cover. In the two years since, nearly all of the ice has returned.

A study of George VI Ice Shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula is the first to show that this currently ‘healthy’ ice shelf experienced an extensive retreat about 9500 years ago, more than anything seen in recent years. The retreat coincided with a shift in ocean currents that occurred after a long period of warmth.

The only empirical fact in this that the mean planetary temperature for the last ten years is 0.4 degrees C warmer than the 150 year average. CO2 is essential for almost every life form on the planet and now I'm told that this is the reason that the world is warming. Why not say pollutant X or pollutant Y is contaminating our rivers and streams? Instead we say something essential for life is killing the earth, killig us all.

In the meantime Al Gore and GE stand to get rich on the backs of polar bears. Run polar bears run.

One Child ONLY - Which Child Do I Give Up?

It always goes back to when I was young doesn't it? This time let's travel back to when I was twelve. A movie came out that I would love to have the opportunity to watch again as an adult.

It was called "The Last Child" It was an ABC Movie of the Week and it was produced by none other than Aaron Spelling. It starred Michael Cole, Van Heflin, Janet Margolin

The Last Child takes place in America in 1994, a time in which a massive, chronic overpopulation crisis has resulted in the passage of Draconian laws, declaring that no couple can have more than one child, and that nobody over the age of 65 can receive any but the most superficial medical treatment. Hey wait that kind of sounds like the not to distant future.

I can still remember one of the opening scenes in which you happen to catch a glimpse of the the young mother's baby bump and that's where the trouble begins. You see the government is able to view her records to discover she had actually had a baby previously. The baby had died not too long after it was born but it had outlived the government mandated time. The obvious solution for the "problem" is to abort the baby. The rest of the movie involves the couple's attempt to flee the United States towards Canada where the laws were less harsh.

I was about eleven or twelve at the time and I remember having nightmares but my Mom assured me that this short of thing could NEVER happen.

It appears that the UN's Copenhagen conference is pondering if the "Population Bomb" may be going off and the whole world needs to adopt China's one-child policy. As a matter of fact I just discovered that Canada's national newspaper is in favor of this solution.

Sorry Mom but you might be wrong when you use the term NEVER.

The world's other species, vegetation, resources, oceans, arable land, water supplies and atmosphere are being destroyed and pushed out of existence as a result of humanity's soaring reproduction rate.

-If only one child per female was born as of now, the world's population would drop from its current 6.5 billion to 5.5 billion by 2050, according to a study done for scientific academy Vienna Institute of Demography.

-By 2075, there would be 3.43 billion humans on the planet. This would have immediate positive effects on the world's forests, other species, the oceans, atmospheric quality and living standards.

-Doing nothing, by contrast, will result in an unsustainable population of nine billion by 2050.

Note to self: I have to read the Population Bomb. I've been meaning to do that for years because it warned of the mass starvation of humans in 1970's and 1980s due to overpopulation and advocated immediate action to limit population growth. Guess the fact that global cooling didn't kill me in the eighties and I didn't die when the Population Bomb went off made me feel I had more time to get around to reading the book.

So which child do I give up? You see I have two sons and they are both fine and wonderful men. Which one should never have been born. Since I have three grandkids which two should never have been born?

Perhaps Obama needs to appoint a czar. Then again maybe such decisions will be made by the EPA because after all every child you selfish Americans have is just destroying the earth. Talk about fear mongering.

Oh and did you know that Canadian journalist Diane Francis, who suggests WE should only have ONE child is the mother of two. (How many polar bears does her extra child kill?)

Quick save the polar bears from global warming caused by over population by humans or should we save the armadillos from global cooling.

Take The Bus

I feel kind of like I did when I lived in DC. I didn't have my driver's license until I was 25 years old. That's because I walked, rode a bike, took the bus or subway anywhere and everywhere I wanted to go. You see I cared about cutting back the pollution that my car might cause.

It appears that these world leaders and/or their representatives are skipping the bus. Why? Don't they care about the polar bears? Is it that their Co2 doesn't stink?

Besides loving any excuse to listen to the Beatles, I thought the video of the empty bus was very telling. Sort of like Al Gore and his private jet. Can we say sanctimonious?

In the meantime the debate lingers on. What debate you ask? I'm sorry didn't you hear the debate is over? Guess those scientists at the UN didn't get the memo. Maybe those scientists are flat earthers. Maybe they just don't care about the polar bears like we do. I mean after all if I want to prove something I ALWAYS use tricks don't you?



Has science really gotten into bed with advocacy? If it turns it back on global warming does that mean that science is in bed with big industry? I mean if I wanted to prove that there was abuse going on at Gitmo would I accept the fact that they "threw away all the data" thereby saying that the debate must now be over? Certainly no card carrying Liberal or Progressive would accept that but I wonder why using trickery, smoke, and mirrors would mean that there is no need to look at the man behind the curtain.

You see the method they were using, tree rings went OK until the sixties and then something happened. It sort of went horribly wrong for reasons that there are lots of papers on and we don't need to go into. (Wonder if any of those reasons involve global cooling)



Is there a manufactured consensus?

"THE Coming Of The New Ice Age."

Back on April 28, 1975 Newsweek did a cover issue warning us of global cooling. I can still remember reading that article and wondering if it was already too late for us all. Then just before I entered my senior year of high school The New York Times, (Aug. 14, 1976) reported "many signs that Earth may be headed for another ice age."

How could we possibly question all the "scientific facts"? Our world was heading for an ice age and humans were not only headed for destruction but were ultimately the cause of the cooling. It's a wonder I bothered graduating from high school because the world was teetering on the brink. After all according to the scientific predictions were only ten years away from self destruction. Who needs a diploma if that's the future you are looking at.

Fortunately for me I not only completed my diploma but went on to get my degree. Oh and by the way, the earth did not end. Oh it felt like it did a few times but last I checked the human race is still alive. Could it be that science was, well wrong?

OK, OK you say, those were just media people and they must have gotten their facts wrong. Actually, In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” • Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….” • Life Magazine, January 1970

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” • Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University (Notice that pesky word unanimously. Think "the debate is over")

Back then polar bears were not the harbinger of the end of times, no it was the humble armadillo. You see The Christian Science Monitor observed that armadillos were retreating south from Nebraska to escape the "global cooling" in its Aug. 27, 1974 issue.



Were the scientists just wrong? Did they manipulate the data? If we follow the money would we learn that scientists were seeking out grant money? Is the real question if you don't believe in global cooling then you are a flat earther? Are armadillos flat earthers?

But wait! Forget those pesky armadillos! Polar Bears are dying! I think this claim is the one that gets to me the most. Who doesn't love looking at those beautiful white bears, from a distance of course. If I say that I think there may be reason to question global warming does that mean I want polar bears to die?

Gore says a scientific study shows that polar bears are being killed swimming long distances to find ice that has melted away because of “global warming.” They are not. The study, by Monnett & Gleason (2005), mentioned just four dead bears. They had died in an exceptional storm, with high winds and waves in the Beaufort Sea. The amount of sea ice in the Beaufort Sea has grown over the past 30 years. A report for the World Wide Fund for Nature shows that polar bears, which are warm-blooded, have grown in numbers where temperature has increased, and have become fewer where temperature has fallen.

Polar bears evolved from brown bears 200,000 years ago, and survived the last interglacial period, when global temperature was 5 degrees Celsius warmer than the present and there was probably no Arctic ice-cap at all. The real threat to polar bears is not “global warming” but hunting. In 1940, there were just 5,000 polar bears worldwide. Now that hunting is controlled, there are 25,000

Let's do something about what's really killing polar bears, hunting. Many of us are appalled by the clubbing of seals but do you hear much about the killing of polar bears by hunters? Why not?

Yes let's save the polar bears Mr. Gore. Instead of buying carbon credits, get out there and tell people about this brutal slaughtering of polar bears.



My question is what happened to global cooling? One day it was all over the news and the next thing you know, you never heard about it. This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s.

Hmmm. Sounds kind of familiar doesn't it?

Two Academy Members Want Al Gore To Give Back His Oscar

This is pretty serious. Well not serious like hey our unemployment rate is ONLY 10%, not hey economy is in a free fall serious, but I'm certain it's a wee bit serious to the Man Who Would Be President, Al Gore.

In the church of Al Gore we worship at the altar of global warming and now there is even more reason to question the truth on Global Warming.

Two members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have called on the group to take back the Oscar awarded to ex-Vice President Al Gore for the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth."

Imagine, an academy award for a college lecture? Maybe I could get me one of those man-lift things and film one of my high school business lectures like the one about how you can't spend money you don't have.

In the mean time the United Nations climate change will meet in Copenhagen. That's right, 16,500 people from 192 countries will fly in using private jets, consume 200,000 meals and produce an estimated 41,000 tons of carbon dioxide, roughly the same as the carbon emissions of Morocco in 2006. Think about all those polar bears.



I would think if we were at crisis level with global warming they might try Go To Meeting instead of all this jetting off to Copenhagen. They should take a page out of Al Gore's book. After all he has cancelled his trip there. Then again, maybe Al Gore cancelled his trip for other reasons.

Too bad because Al Gore stood to make some real money at the event. here's the announcement at VisitCopenhagen.com:

Have you ever shaken hands with an American vice president? If not, now is your chance. Meet Al Gore in Copenhagen during the UN Climate Change Conference in December 2009.

VIP meeting with Al Gore

This is the book, on which Al Gore will base his lecture, when he invites Copenhageners and visitors to hear him speak about what can be done to solve the serious problems of climate change.

Tickets are available in different price ranges for the event. If you want it all, you can purchase a VIP ticket, where you get a chance to shake hands with Al Gore, get a copy of Our Choice and have your picture taken with him. The VIP event costs DKK 5,999 and includes drinks and a light snack.

If you do not want to spend that much money, but still want to hear Al Gore speak about his latest book about climate challenges, you can purchase general tickets, ranging in price from DKK 199 - 1,499 depending on where in the room you want to sit. There will be large screens, so that everyone will get a good view.

How much is DKK 5,999?

Well, according to TheMoneyConverter.com, a Danish Krone is currently worth 20.22 cents.

That means 5,999 Krones is about $1,213. Nice work if you can get it.

Today's Global Warming Word Problem

Amid the Climatage Scandal in which the director of East Anglia University CRU, Phil Jones, openly admitted that the material found by hackers was genuine,I have a word problem for you to solve.

If an average European flight produces over 400 kg of greenhouse gases for every passenger, how many 400 kg adult polar bears does Al Gore kill when he flies his private plane?

The correct answer is: "It doesn't matter how many polar bears Al Gore kills. What matters is that you not question the science of "Global Warming."

If you are one of those "flat earther, global warming deniers" you might not be surprised to find out that the debate is NOT over in the Science of Gobal Warming.

Enter the current political "gate", Climategate, which involves hacked emails. I find it interesting that Sarah Palin's hacked yahoo email account brought such great interest despite not revealing anything of a criminal nature. Sarah's packer was considered a hero. Certainly we don't want the government hacking our email, but random people of a political bent out to bring down a politician, they are heroes.

Which brings us to the current hacker. Even the word hacker brings about images of a swarmy guy sitting in his mother's basement in his underwear staring vacantly at his computer screen. This time a hacker has hit the mother lode and the data he has discovered is not welcome. It makes some feel, well, uncomfortable.

Do you remember this polar bear moment with Al Gore?



Interestingly enough Al Gore was a tad bit wrong about the court's findings about his movie. On October 2, 2007 a British court found Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, to be politically biased, and it ruled teachers must warn students of that bias before showing the film.

The director of Britain’s leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told investigative that their emails were indeed hacked and does not deny the contents of these emails. As a matter of fact Professor Phil Jones, who heads the climate research unit (CRU) at the UEA, announced that he would step down while the university launches an independent inquiry into allegations of misconduct.

This is an open admission by Jones, who thus admits fully that his system was hacked and that what was contained in the ‘leaked’ material was true! He did not attempt to deny what the contents of 1072 emails and 72 documents were about. Andrew Bolt says of this fact that is was “a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory – a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science.”

Some of the proxy measurements include tree rings and satellite data. In particular tree rings of one tree were preferred over those of a larger section of rings from a tree that did not manage to support the pro-warming findings! There are a number of problems with using satellite measurements, too – such as each full sweep of the earth is accompanied by a degeneration in the satellite’s orbital height! There are other problems.

Jones sent an email (Nov 1999) to Mann et al, saying:

“Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s (Ed. Michael Mann) trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years… and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline…”

Another tree-ring scientist, Gary Funkhouser, in an email to ‘Keith’, thought it was funny how he managed to deceive by fiddling data: “I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that” and “I don’t think it would be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have.”

Phil Jones, in another email, admits that money drives his agenda. He said:

“If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”

Sounds a bit like fuzzy math to me.

Now am I denying that our earth has been polluted, that our lakes, streams, rivers, and oceans have had dangerous chemicals dumped into them? NO and something needs to be done about that. Am I saying that it's OK to keep throwing out pollutants into our atmosphere? Again the answer is a resounding NO. However, do I think Carbon Credits is going to be the answer? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

What people who demand that we go after greedy, evil corporations by taxing them forget is that corporations PASS THESE taxes on in HIGHER prices to you the consumer. Obama knows that. He's honest about it.



This must be serious because even Jon Steward is talking about it. Jon must be one of those crazy, backward, flat-earther, global warming deniers.



I am for nuclear energy. It's a cleaner source of power. I am for hydro-energy. I think that these venues can and should be explored.

What I'd like to know is what do you think the answer to the pollution problem? Does the news of these recently released emails and the manipulation of the data give you cause to doubt global warming?