Crush Liberalism

Not only were they wrong about the planet warming (it’s not), but they were also wrong about sea levels rising.

Exit question: At what point may we stop considering them to be “experts”?

To quote Bones from Star Trek: “It’s dead, Jim.”

Awesome column here, but the takeaway quote:

“The global warming movement as we have known it is dead,” the brilliant analyst Walter Russell Mead says in his blog on The American Interest. It was done in by a combination of bad science and bad politics.

In other news, DC is digging out from about three feet of global warming right now.

Nothing demonstrates the soundness and independence of science quite like threatening job losses, no?  Details:

Britain’s Met Office has embarked on an urgent exercise to bolster the reputation of climate-change science after the furor over leaked e-mails, referred to as “Climate-gate.”More than 1,700 scientists have agreed to sign a statement defending the “professional integrity” of global warming research. They were responding to a round-robin request from the Met Office, which has spent four days collecting signatures. The initiative is a sign of how worried it is that e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia are fueling skepticism about man-made global warming at a critical moment in talks on carbon emissions.

One scientist said that he felt under pressure to sign the circular or risk losing work. The Met Office admitted that many of the signatories did not work on climate change.

…

One scientist told The Times of London he felt pressure to sign. “The Met Office is a major employer of scientists and has long had a policy of only appointing and working with those who subscribe to their views on man-made global warming,” he said.

Quips Ace:

The science is settled; your contract extension? Maybe not so much.

Heh.

2009 may go down as the year that the junk science fad known as global “waming” began to die, but the left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy) won’t let it go down without a fight.

Ed’s got all the details at Hot Air, but suffice it to say, what we have been saying for the last several years has been proven to be correct:

There is no global “warming”!

It is a junk science fad, period.  End of discussion.  Thanks for coming, and be sure to tip your waitress on the way out.

Look, if you have to hide data that casts doubt on your hypothesis, then you are at best a lousy and worthless scientist…and at worst, a horrible fraud.  With irrefutable evidence that global temperatures have not increased in the last ten years, then by definition, there cannot be “warming”!

Or, as Patrick Michaels headlines it, “The Dog Ate” it.  Excerpt:

Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in Copenhagen in December.

Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.

Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened, and they aren’t talking much. And what little they are saying makes no sense.

If you have any inkling as to what science is and how it works, prepare yourself for this jaw-dropping statement:

Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/–” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to “try and find something wrong.” The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.

Wow.  “You’ll try to find something wrong with it”?  Seriously?

I mean, data is available that shows that the sun is hot, so even if I were hellbent on finding “something wrong with the data”, I wouldn’t be able to do so.  The heat of the sun stands up to scientific scrutiny.  The junk science fad known as global “warming” survives no such scrutiny, and it seems that this “scientist” knows that.

RIP global “warming”:

An EPA finding last month that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health rests on dubious assumptions and could have negative economic impacts, a memo from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) warned.

The memo has no listed author but is marked “Deliberative–Attorney Client Privilege.” A spokesman for OMB told Dow Jones Newswires that the brief is a “conglomeration of counsel we’ve received from various agencies” about the EPA finding, the conclusions of which would trigger regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

The author(s) of the memo suggest the EPA did not thoroughly examine the relationship between greenhouse gases and human health.

“In the absence of a strong statement of the standards being applied in this decision, there is concern that EPA is making a finding based on…’harm’ from substances that have no demonstrated direct health effects,” the memo says, adding that the “scientific data that purports to conclusively establish” that link was from outside EPA.
…
Finally, in language sure to anger climate change activists, the memo questions whether climate change might bring benefits that would mitigate the costs.

“To the extent that climate change alters out environment, it will create incentives for innovation and adaption that mitigate the damages,” the memo reads. “The [EPA finding] should note this possibility[.] … It might be reasonable to conclude that Alaska will benefit from warmer winters for both health and economic reasons,” the authors note.

You mean that IF these so-called “greenhouse gases” exist, they might actually be…dare I repeat it?…beneficial!