“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” – Samuel Adams

New Book on the ClimateGate Hoax

There’s a new book out about the Climategate scandal and the anthropogenic global warming hoax in general.

In case you’ve been asleep for the last year, Climategate is the scandal that blew up just before the Copenhagen climate change confab last fall in which we learned about leaked emails and documents revealing fudged computer models, destroyed data, stonewalling against Freedom of Information requests, “tricks” to hide the decline in temperatures, and more.

Sean Hannity had “Climategate” author Brian Sussman on his show (see the video below) to talk about this scandal

Within the last decade, with the help of poster boy Al Gore, the global warming movement has become an international concern. But in the wake of the Climate-gate scandal, many are questioning the motives of the people pushing the global-warming crisis and asking whether the world has been duped by a complex cover-up of something that does not exist.

In his new book “Climategate,” Brian Sussman asserts that the global warming hype is really just a form of communism rooted in the principles of Karl Marx. Now Sussman argues that the communist tenets of moral relativism, the belief in science over God, and the idea of de-developing successful nations to fill the needs of underdeveloped countries all describe the global warming movement.

Climate-gate, he argues highlighted these principles by showing that the scientists were purposely hiding information that would prove their theories wrong and knowingly deceiving people by manipulating the science.

The, quote, “green movement” has made billions for international corporations, governments and elitists individuals. Prime example, being jet-setting green hero Al Gore.

Between his Oscar-winning film, best-selling books, comfy board positions on Google and Apple and his investments on, quote, “green company start-ups,” some estimates are out there that Gore has made over $500 million off the global warming hype and stands to make much more.

And let’s not forget the current administration. President Obama has pushed hard for cap and tax and has the most aggressive green agenda to date.

Sussman also discusses the fake “consensus” argument that is supposed to kick-start the peer-pressure herd instinct in people to motivate them to believe this nonsense…even those the actual science really points toward natural and cyclic climate change going up and down for thousands of years.

In “The New Consensus,” and this is a handbook used at legislative level all across the country in every state. And the new consensus, he says, even when the science is uncertain, we need to go ahead with these plans and we need to build, he said, build consensus.
Sean, in my book I clearly prove there is no consensus. This is a myth.

While there are plenty of rank and file liberal lemmings out there who gobble this stuff up (it’s a good fit with their socialist loathing of the Western way of life), most of these elites don’t buy the bilge they peddle to the rest of us. If they did, elitists like the global warming boss at the UN wouldn’t have his chauffeur give him a ride one mile to work or to the market. If they really believed this crap, the world leaders who went to Copenhagen to save the world from real people wouldn’t have needed so many private jets and limos. The same goes with the environmental extremists in congress, the liberals who went to President Obama’s inauguration, and hypocrites like Al Gore himself.

Hollywood and pop culture figures aren’t buying it either.  “Avatar” environmental wacko James Cameron himself has been jetting all over the planet, spewing evil fumes into the atmosphere to tell us unwashed little people that we need to get our environmental act together.

It’s time this silly propaganda “theory” went the way of the flat earth, bleeding the ill, and geocentrism.


Try us out at the new location: American Clarion!


12 Responses to “New Book on the ClimateGate Hoax”

  1. Jay Richards’ “When-Not-To-Believe-The-Science-Of-Scientists” is the best rebuttal to the relentless drum beat of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) zombies. A person’s retort only has to quote one or more of a dozen of the reasons listed below, depending on the offending Eco-hype in question, to give Jay Richards' logic and common sense wings. His 12 point checklist should be taught in the classroom to inoculate our youth against the rising flood of propaganda manufactured by Big Government, Big Media and Big Academia working together against the best interests of the American people.

    Let's see, what might fit the logical absurdities ladled out in many of today’s AGW articles responding to ClimateGate revelations of scientific, political, media and academic misconduct and outright RICO ACT fraud? #10 looks pretty good to start with, but here, you choose the rest:

    (1) When different claims get bundled together.
    (2) When ad hominem attacks against dissenters predominate.
    (3) When scientists are pressured to toe the party line.
    (4) When publishing and peer review in the discipline is cliquish.
    (5) When dissenting opinions are excluded from the relevant peer-reviewed literature not because of weak evidence or bad arguments but as part of a strategy to marginalize dissent.
    (6) When the actual peer-reviewed literature is misrepresented.
    (7) When consensus is declared hurriedly or before it even exists.
    (8) When the subject matter seems, by its nature, to resist consensus.
    (9) When “scientists say” or “science says” is a common locution.
    (10) When it is being used to justify dramatic political or economic policies.
    (11) When the “consensus” is maintained by an army of water-carrying journalists who defend it with uncritical and partisan zeal, and seem intent on helping certain scientists with their messaging rather than reporting on the field as objectively as possible.
    (12) When we keep being told that there’s a scientific consensus.

    For a better understanding go to:

    http://thegovmonitor.com/world_news/united_stat

  2. Bob, if you conservatives had any interest in facts or the truth, you'd have realized that this supposed “scandal” is the real hoax. After an independent Science Assessment Panel examined the e-mails and the research, they found that there was no evidence of malpractice.

    The whole thing was blown out of proportion by people who are scientifically illiterate and don't understand the terminology the scientists were using. And you conservatives were so desperate to find any evidence of malpractice that you latched onto this without caring if it was true or not.

    So what have we learned here? Conservatives are eager to believe a lie if it agrees with their views. That's sad.

  3. Yes, the jackals have investigated the foxes and found no wrongdoing in the hen house. It is so good to have that reassurance.

    The material revealed speaks for itself: the tricks used to hide the decline in temperature, the fudged computer models, the stonewalling, the destroyed data. The material is its own indictment.

    Many of us knew even before this information was leaked that the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming was a load of nonsense. There is no hard data to support this silly theory, and it fails to conform even to its own “fudged” computer models when given a chance. Meanwhile, the overwhelming actual science indicates the planet warms and cools greatly in cycles throughout thousands of years of history–most of the time in greater extremes than seen today.

    And as much as I know liberals love to ignore facts and live in a fantasy world, you just can't get around the fact that the greatest of these climate changes occurred long before there were SUVs, power plants or other capitalistic industrial endeavors to demonize.

    That some in our country want to undermine our freedom and prosperity based on unfounded Marxist propaganda is what is truly sad.

  4. That's exactly what I was talking about, Bob. You're so eager to believe any lie that fits your previously held views that you don't care about the truth. You just casually dismiss any possible evidence that doesn't agree with your views.

    There's just no reasoning with you. You've built a brick wall around yourself to keep out any truth that disagrees with your irrational conservative views. So I hope you enjoy your lies, Bob.

  5. Haggs, how many times and how many ways do I have to say this? You are caught up in your own fantasy world. There is no substantive evidence for anthropogenic global warming; it doesn't exist. There is conjecture, there is guesswork, there are “fudged” computer models…and that's it. Oh, I forgot the wishful thinking, hoping for a baseball bat with which to hammer freedom and prosperity.

    It's amazing how you liberals accuse others of precisely the disease from which you suffer. You cannot seem to grasp the difference between assumption and conjecture, and when someone dumps a truckload of actual information at your feet, you're like the cat who can't find his bowl right in front of his nose. No amount of data, facts, information or logic will dissuade you from your fear and loathing.

    You're entitled to live that way. You're even entitled to seek out someone who will tell you what to do, make all your decisions for you, and do all your thinking for you.

    But Americans don't like that. We like to think for ourselves, decide how we will live on our own terms, and enjoy the wide open space of freedom and personal responsibility. You should try it sometime.

  6. Bob

    I know you don't accept the science of AGW and I haven't studied it enough to know one way or the other. But I also know you don't accept cosmological science that claims the universe is billions of years old. But yet whe we peer through the Hubble, we see stars and galaxies in various stages of formation, from very young ones to ones ready to end their life cycle.

    I have never received a straight answer from a 6 to 10 thousand year creationist on this. Is it that you believe that God created the universe in various stages of formation to make it appear as if it is billions of years old ? I can accept that. It seems strange, though that that would be the case-sort of like if humans were born at ages from one day to eighty years, but obviously that isn't the best analogy, although an intersting one, since the rest of the universe was formed this way if it is only 10 thousand years old.

    I know you'll shoot it straight.

  7. Thanks for your confidence, Brian.

    This is probably the single-most problematic area for young-earth creationists. However, there are a number of theories which can potentially reconcile this.

    One that I don't particularly like but is considered plausible by some people I do respect is that God may have created the outer regions of the universe first, working his way inward until he got to the earth which was initially a formless mass, at which time he gave it solid form and began the creation week. I don't particularly like this one, as it seems overly complicated and seems to stretch the continuity between Genesis 1:2 and Genesis 1:3.

    There are variations on this general scenario, one being that, like trees and animals and human beings, God created the universe with the “appearance of age.” In other words, when God created the plants, they weren't initially seeds; when he created animals, they weren't newborns, and neither was Adam. Likewise, the theory goes that God put the stars and other celestial bodies in place and artificially created their light emanations to reach earth on Day 4. I like this one a little better.

    There are still other theories that I find interesting and I tend to lean a little more toward them. One is that the universe once expanded at a much greater rate than it currently does, so that the majority of the distance between earth and distant stellar objects was achieved in the first few hundred or first few thousand years of history.

    Another theory involves changes in the speed of light. We are used to thinking of the speed of light as a constant, but we now know through empirical laboratory experiments (not just theory, but it has actually been done) that the speed of light can be changed under certain conditions; scientists have even managed to slow light down to a near standstill. It is entirely possible that the speed of light may have been many times faster in ages past.

    Still another theory involves a finding by Oxford scientists about a year and a half ago. Scientists now believe that our area of the universe is unusually devoid of other matter when compared to the rest of the universe. These scientists believe that this relatively low density may actually warp space-time itself, making stellar objects outside this area appear much farther away than they actually are.

    As I've said before, creationists can't prove these things any more than materialists and evolutionists can prove their presuppositions. But for a theory to be viable, it has to be logical and plausible within the framework of its key worldview assumptions. And most of theories I've mentioned are logical and possible within the framework of fundamental creationist assumptions.

  8. Truly appreciate all that you explained. I guess even though we differ on how we got here, we both agree the universe is a …well… human words can't describe it.

  9. Yes, it's truly stupefying to ponder. The Creation Museum that my family and I visited several months ago has a video they show in their planetarium (I bought a DVD copy) which shows the scale of our planet and our sun to some of the much bigger stars out there, and ends up taking a “journey” to as far out into the known universe as we believe we know about–so far out that clusters of galaxies look like a single star–then zooms back in at an exponential rate until we're looking down on the earth again.

    To consider that it all happened spontaneously, or to consider it was created from a designer's mind–either possibility is beyond comprehension. But believing as I do that God spoke it all into existence…and that He knows my name and cared enough to suffer on a cross for a rebellious sinner like me: that's even more awesome to contemplate than His universe.

  10. Well I certainly understand how your viewpoint of God 'creating this all' and then above and beyond that, Him even caring for and loving you, would be so awesome to contemplate for you and also beyond complete comprehension as well. Seems like us humans just aren't too good at comprehending things. Contemplate yes- truly comprehending , no.

    You know to me, it is our lack or inability of true comprehension that makes things so exciting to contemplate about in the first place.Like the wonderment in a childs eyes eye when they first see snow