Memos from inside the fraudulent Al Gore Cult of Global Warming
by David K. Williams, Jr. | 10:28 pm, November 20, 2009 | Comments Off
It is hard work defending a cult. Especially when the truth might harm its foundations.Cult leaders will suppress the truth to protect the religious movement. Scientists seek truth.
That, my friends, is the difference between members of the Al Gore Cult of Global Warming and actual scientists.
The New York Times reports that the Cult's internal memos demonstrate a deliberate intent to suppress the truth to preserve the religion.
Some examples:
In several e-mail exchanges, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and other scientists discussed whether a string of recent years of relatively stable temperatures undermined scientific models that predict long-term warming.“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” Dr. Trenberth wrote.
An actual scientist faced with data contrary to his hypothesis would ask if his hypothesis was wrong. A religious zealot curses the data and calls it a travesty.
In a 1999 e-mail exchange about charts showing climate patterns over the last two millennia, Phil Jones, a longtime climate researcher at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, said he had used a “trick” employed by another scientist, Michael Mann, to “hide a decline” in temperatures.
Actual scientists do not use "tricks" to fool people. Cult leaders and snake-oil salesmen use tricks, to, well, trick people into believing a lie.
"Drinking the Kool-Aid" has become a cliche, but Jim Jones would have made an excellent climate change advocate from his campground in Guyana. Jones led a very successful cult.
Just like Al Gore.
Comments
Praise for PPC From Our Lefty "Fan"
- "Zany-ass bombast-entertainment...Hackneyed weirdo communist pseudo-nostalgia" --Alan Franklin, ProgressNow
Featured Posts
- Ga. Court Rules Obama Eligible to Run; Appeal Slated
It was too easy for the Georgia judge to hide behind another court’s questionable ruling. I think the Liberty Legal Foundation may be onto something. At least on appeal the court won’t be able to throw it out on procedural grounds. Stay tuned…
- Printing Money Doesn’t Work in Britain Either
- Oklahoma’s Constitutional Amendment Would Pit Taxpayers Against Unions
- Friday’s Unemployment Numbers: Correcting the Corrections
- Romney Woos Grand Junction, Earns Sen. King’s Endorsement
- The Borking of Netflix: movie service finds privacy law to be an inconvenience
- Rich Americans Are Fleeing the Country




