How Can People Be So Stupid? Rotating Header Image

Global Warmingistas Now Dis NY Times Reporter Who Had Been One Of Their Best Mouthpieces

The whole Climategate scandal just keeps getting better and better. For a long time, Andrew Revkin has been a favorite mouthpiece for the Anthropogenic Global Warmingistas. But, last week in an article in the NY Times, he mentioned that prostitutes in Copenhagen would service the COP-15 attendees for free. He did not go into the details, but it seems that Lord Mayor Ritt Bjerrengaard did not want the climate conference attendees taking advantage of the entirely legal services offered by prostitutes in Copenhagen. (Now, I guess, we know why many of the attendees went to the conference, anyway, even after the document release from the CRU showed that the whole global warming thing was a scam, anyway, as I have been saying for years.) I don’t know what kind of mayor this is. After all, aren’t mayors supposed to support local trade and commerce? I could not understand her sending postcards to all of the hotels requesting that guests “Be sustainable – don’t buy sex”. I’m not sure what sustainability has to do with sex, unless the implication is that you cannot sustain your wallet if you buy all the sex you want. But, I digress.

In his posting, Revkin also mentioned that he found it amusing that almost everything seems to be blamed on global warming, including an article that claimed “Climate change linked to fish aggression“. Now, I have to admit, I agree with him, here. It has been pointed out in many articles that so many things are “related” to global warming that have no relationship whatsoever to global warming. Most famously, blaming Hurricane Katrina on global warming, and other similarly ridiculous claims. Several people have even pointed out how researchers in many diverse areas must include the mention of climate change, or global warming, in their grant request if they hope to receive any money, even if their field of research may have  nothing to do with climate change. If you want to see just how absurd it has become, look at this document from Australia that delineates the projects that were funded by Australia under the rubric of “Global Warming” or “Climate Change”. It is truly staggering. But, in the document, it is stated that:

To identify projects either directly or indirectly related to climate change research, a search of projects awarded funding
under the NCGP was undertaken using the following search criteria: (i) the keywords ‘climate change’, ‘global warming’
or ‘greenhouse gas’ in the ‘Project title’, ‘Project abstract’ or ‘National Benefit Text’ fields of the application; and (ii) projects
that had selected the Socio-Economic Objective (SEO) code of 770101 (climate change) as being relevant to the research.
The list of projects identified through this search was then checked for relevance. In addition, a separate search
was undertaken of Centres funded through the ARC Centres of Excellence scheme. The details are as at the time research
proposals were approved for funding and exclude any post-award variations that may subsequently have been approved.

In other words, as long as you manage to work the magic words into the correct place, you will get your grant, based on a need to fund research into “Global Warming”. And, if you read through the list of grants that follows this “rule”, it is completely clear that most of them have nothing whatsoever to do with climate change or global warming. Truly astonishing.

He also mentioned  some other threads, both for and against, global warming. But, another sin he committed was mentioning Roger Pielke, Jr. Pielke, apparently, rightfully criticized a conference call related to the Climategate e-mails because it was sponsored by a climate change advocacy group (Center For American Progress.)  This call included Prof. Michael Mann, one of the scoundrels at the very heart of the Climategate debacle, and other global warmingistas. Obviously, it was not going to be very objective.

And then, finally, Revkin put in a link to the “Hide The Decline” audio that I featured last week. This transgression was not brought up, but it had to be grating to Michael Schlesinger of the University of Illinois. He is another well known global warmingista, and in response to Revkin’s posting, he sent Revkin this e-mail:

Copenhagen prostitutes?
Climate prostitutes?
Shame on you for this gutter reportage.
This is the second time this week I have written you thereon, the first about giving space in your blog to the Pielkes.
The vibe that I am getting from here, there and everywhere is that your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists.
Of course, your blog is your blog.
But, I sense that you are about to experience the ‘Big Cutoff’ from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included.
Copenhagen prostitutes?
Unbelievable and unacceptable.
What are you doing and why?

Just more evidence that the whole global warming thing is a religion based on bad science, the purpose of which is global governance. It also shows a total lack of tolerance for dissenting views, which is one of the main problems exhibited in the leaked CRU e-mails. Science is about the free exchange of ideas. Over time, the best (true) ideas will prevail. To lock out opposition and to shut the doors to any ideas that do not fit the agenda is not science; it is politics.

Leave a Reply

Maximum 2 links per comment. Do not use BBCode.