Truth be told, I feel a perverse glee at the unraveling of the greatest scientific hoax of all time. The Marxist front—ironically turned big business—global warming, has now been shown to be based in large part on purposeful fabrications (aka lies).
While acknowledgment, grudging or otherwise, that the right-wing-kook denialist fringe was right all along will likely not be forthcoming from the heretofore censorious pseudo-scientist crowd, relish may be taken from the knowledge that their most insipid and unprincipled catch-phrase has been rendered impotent.
Never again will I be forced to listen to the benighted liberalati utter the anti-intellectual phrase, “the science is settled!” For now this phrase comes with an automatic and delightfully rhyming rejoinder.
“No my friend, the science is meddled.”
November 24, 2009 at 2:44 pm
I see the recent purge of the "Moonie" Times editorial staff hasn't hindered their ability to incite what's left of their base.
November 24, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Sadly, I think the editorial itself is only in the vein of a hoax. The way it's written, and especially the quotes, seem entirely unreal. Just something to dangle in front of us and then laugh at when we bite.
November 24, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Well, I think that this is not the greatest scientific hoax of all time.
It had only few years of existence.
I think that the bigger hoax is darwinism. It has 150 years of existence although more and more people are claiming today against it.
There are a lot of similarities between Global Warning and Darwinism. One of them for example is that the scientist of the Global Warming don't allow to the other side to publish peer-review articles and also they are ridiculized.
Another similarity is that there are not scientific evidences and they are retouching data to fit into their "imagined" "scientific" theory.
Regards from Spain!!!
November 24, 2009 at 8:40 pm
The question is: will Gore have to return his Nobel Prize?
November 25, 2009 at 12:46 am
He should and give it to her – although she is dead: http://richards-creations.net/Pages/8/_Irena-s_Children.html
Mum26
November 25, 2009 at 1:53 am
Leah I believe you are correct here. Climate change is a reality. It's been going on since the magma of the earth began to settle, and will continue until the second coming.
I think what needs to happen on this issue is anarchist environmentalists and ditto-head neo-cons need to begin to think for themselves and accept some realities (Tall order, I know); namely that there is less/no ice where there was once lots of it, and in certain places this is going to happen regardless of what humans do or do not do.
November 25, 2009 at 2:10 am
To me it'll always be Michael Crichton.
"We can't predict the weather a week from now but we can predict what'll happen in a hundred years? Has everyone gone insane?"
And an interesting thought, Platypus. Though Darwinism is a lot easier to have outright hoaxes in attempts to "definitively prove it." From the moths on trees to the side-by-side horses.
Keep in mind, though, these guys did it because Doomsday sells. And when corporations stopped fighting the Science about ten years ago, everyone got the impression that it was all now "settled."
Could elements of Global warming be true? Sure. But I think the hysteria nailed onto it is really more proof of our ignorant and coarsened culture than anything else.
November 25, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Whoa there Early Riser. I am definitely *not* on the global-warming-right-now crazy train. I was merely expressing cautious disbelief, not matter how much I *want* it to be true, of the editorial itself. It reads a little suspect to me, especially the oddly casual/almost colloquial quotes.
I would hate for the editorial to have been written as a prank to see how many people would swallow it. I just want some more corroboration.
November 30, 2009 at 12:26 am
Let's hope this one sticks. The Piltdown Man hoax didn't stop Evolution (funny that Michael Mann has been labeled Piltdown Mann by some) and Ernst Haeckel's fraudulent embroy drawings keep showing up in textbooks. The mainstream media has had plenty of practise covering up this sort of thing, what with all the still-missing links that have been discovered with great fanfare and then quietly dismissed as incorrect or irrelevant, or worse. And I'd be very surprised if it was ever reported that radiometric dating methods give horribly wrong dates for rocks of known age, casting into complete doubt rocks of unknown age (which is why the dating labs require sample submissions to include an expected age.
So yeah, I really hope this sticks, and is even the beginning of an avalance as the 'scientific consensus' is doubted, but there's no guarantee it won't get squashed. It's a matter for prayer, for certain.