Greenbats Exposed

The blogosphere, (but not the major media) is buzzing with news of the newly-exposed climate fraud. Cybertons (I just made that word up - there are tons of it but all in cyberspace) of emails and other data reveal the alarmists for what they are: GREENBATS!

You can depend, however, on politicians and the doomsayers to try and shoot the messenger by the usual attempts to discredit the data as being contrived and/or make disingenuous accusations against “the deniers.” The general tactic of the left is to make ad-hominem attacks on truth-tellers when they are unable to refute the truth.

Remember the conclusions we came to when evaluating some actual science:

  • The media will print or broadcast sensationalized headlines to sell copy regardless of scientific value
  • The media will print or broadcast manipulated science with half-truths and invalid conclusions to damage politicians with whom they do not agree
  • Politicians seize on these unverified claims in order to blame their opponents
  • Uneducated/uninformed people are as gullible as ever

You can add the following to the above:

  • Unscrupulous profiteers will attempt to conceal the truth about the climate

We see this principle at work at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit as they generate their “Fiction Science.”

By the way, head Greenbat Al Gore demonstrated his complete ignorance of science (or did he lie?) when he claimed the interior temperature of the Earth to be “millions of degrees.” That would be “Thousands of degrees,” you moron.

2 Comments

  1. Kini said,

    November 24, 2009 @ 23:52:57

    We always knew global warming was a global hoax.

  2. Cap'n Bob said,

    November 25, 2009 @ 06:35:56

    I thought Jonah Goldberg captured the left’s reaction to this news very well:

    The elite press treats skepticism about global warming as a mental defect. It uses a form of the No True Scotsman fallacy to delegitimize people who dissent from the (manufactured) “consensus.” Dissent is scientifically unserious, therefore dissenting scientist A is unserious. There’s no way to break in. The moment someone disagrees with the “consensus” they disqualify themselves from criticizing the consensus. . . .

    And journalistic skepticism is almost nowhere to be found. If you know people in the “skeptic community” (for want of a better term) or even just normal, honest scientists, the observation that federal and foundation funding and groupthink is driving, or at least distorting, the climate debate is commonplace. But it’s given almost no oxygen in the elite press, because they are in on it.

RSS feed for comments on this post

-->