there is a clear lineage from rousseau, through to us… its parallel to the socilists/communists/fascists…

that if you know the COMPLETE history, with names and connections, you wuol dnever have fallen for the crap science posing as valid science.

i will see if i can update the lineages… very hard to write 120 years of history we are ignorant of in two paragraphs…

http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2009/11/30/the-climategate-money-trail/

Anybody watching abccbsnbccnnnpr might not.

Yes, Chief Science Advisor to the President.

Like Dr. John Holdren.

thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/69797-gibbs-despite-research-dispute-climate-change-is-happening

there is such a thing as talking about somethign too long and not choosing… and there is such a tactic as to force a choice early so as to define the choice, rather than let facts do so.

its VERY common among the far left, like nazi and soviets to completely lie or debase soemthing.

ergo… if they are involved, you can be sure truth is sacrificed. this is why we never trusted them in the past, it wasnt paranoia if your brother actually is a sociopath and you dont want him sitting at the dinner table, is it?

Despite the incident, which rocked international headlines last week, climate science is sound, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stressed this afternoon, and the White House nonetheless believes “climate change is happening.”

game set match..

they are going to vote away sovereignity and we are goinb to be a part of the new soviet (council).

it doesnt matter validity, it matters who wins.
validity only matters in a meritocracy or when trying to make one…

welcome to the world of lies and mirrors and where nothing works!!!

why? because sciecne lies, psychology then lies. factories lie as to outputs beacuset htey get lies as inputs. the whole thing spreads throlughout.

its a way of life, not a isolated one off.

Yes, Stanford tenure at the very least!

Like Dr. Paul Ehrlich.

Some of their shitty ideas have been left behind, but they never get their comeuppance.

Is there some media concensus threshold that can be identified and must be reached before global warming hysteria is acknowledged by the culture at large? i.e a tree falling in the forest makes a sound.

At some point global warming will stop being referred to in much the same pattern that the new ice age crap from the 70s and 80s was dropped. The climate change rebranding will not work because the ammunition was spent on warming. Climate “change” alone means nothing because it does not suggest a direction for the dictates; there must be a specter of either warming or cooling. AGW has been forced too strongly for too long and made too great an impression to be forgotten the way cooling was from its nadir in the mid-80s

Will anyone retire in disgrace, get fired or become a laughingstock? (“paging Mr Gore”)

Instead humanity could choose to adapt to the warming as necessary, and spend money according to where it does the most good instead of some huge world effort to cut back CO2 in which success is uncertain.

According to AGW advocates it’s possible at some point that no matter what we do to reduce CO2 it will be too late, which is why we must act now. There is even a group, One Hundred Months.org, which says that we now have only 84 months left before this tipping point in the climate.

However, anyone at all honest on the subject even from the AGW side, knows that such precision is a fantasy when it comes to climate. If AGW is true, it’s possible we are already past that tipping point, in which case we would be far better off adapting to global warming rather than futilely trying to stave it off with draconian carbon reduction measures.

Anyway it’s well worth looking at the flowchart at Oblio’s link: http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/crudgate-why-this-cant-be-swept-under.html