http://article.nationalreview.com/42...ng/the-editors

Exaggeration and alarmism have been a chronic weakness of environmentalism since it became an
organized movement in the 1960s. Every ecological problem was instantly transformed into a
potential world-ending crisis, from the population bomb to the imminent resource depletion of the
"limits to growth" fad of the 1970s to acid rain to ozone depletion, always with an overlay of
moral condemnation of anyone who dissented from environmental correctness. With global warming, the
environmental movement thought it had hit the jackpot - a crisis sufficiently long-range that it
could not be falsified and broad enough to justify massive political controls on resource use at a
global level. Former Colorado senator Tim Wirth was unusually candid when he remarked in the early
days of the climate campaign that "we've got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory
of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing - in terms of economic policy and
environmental policy." (Not surprisingly, after Wirth left the Senate and the Clinton
administration he ended up at the United Nations.)

The global-warming thrill ride looks to be coming to an end, undone by the same politically
motivated serial exaggeration and moral preening that discredited previous apocalypses. On the
heels of the East Anglia University "Climategate" scandal have come a series of embarrassing
retractions from the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) regarding some of the
most loudly trumpeted signs and wonders of global warming, such as the ludicrous claim that
Himalayan glaciers would disappear within 30 years, that nearly half of the Amazon jungle was at
imminent risk of destruction from a warming planet, and that there was a clear linkage between
climate change and weather-related economic losses. The sources for these claims turned out to be
environmental advocacy groups - not rigorous, peer-reviewed science.

To be sure, these revelations do not in and of themselves mean that the idea of anthropogenic
global warming is false. But this is probably the beginning of a wholesale revision of the
conventional wisdom on climate change. One of the central issues of Climategate - the veracity and
integrity of the surface-temperature records used for our estimates of warming over the last few
decades - is far from resolved. The next frontier is likely to be a fresh debate about basic
climate sensitivity itself. There have been several recent peer-reviewed papers suggesting much
lower climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases than the IPCC "consensus" computer models predict.
And alternative explanations for observed climate change in the Arctic and elsewhere, such as
shifts in ocean currents and wind patterns, should receive a second look.

Dissenters who pointed out these and other flaws in the IPCC consensus were demonized as deniers
and ignored by the media, but they are now vindicated. (The American media are still averting their
gaze, though the British press - even the left-wing Guardian and the Independent - is turning on
the climate campaigners with deserved vengeance.) The IPCC is mumbling about non-specific reforms
and changes in the process shaping its next massive climate report, due out in three or four years.
The IPCC should emulate a typical feature of American government commissions and include a minority
report from dissenters or scientists with a different emphasis. But the next IPCC report may not
matter much: With the collapse of the Kyoto-Copenhagen process and the likely rejection of
cap-and-trade in Congress, climate mania may have run its course.

"Eric Gisin" wrote in message

http://article.nationalreview.com/42...ng/the-editors

Dissenters who pointed out these and other flaws in the IPCC
consensus were demonized as deniers and ignored by the media, but
they are now vindicated. (The American media are still averting their
gaze, though the British press - even the left-wing Guardian and the
Independent - is turning on the climate campaigners with deserved
vengeance.) The IPCC is mumbling about non-specific reforms and
changes in the process shaping its next massive climate report, due
out in three or four years. The IPCC should emulate a typical feature
of American government commissions and include a minority report from
dissenters or scientists with a different emphasis. But the next IPCC
report may not matter much: With the collapse of the Kyoto-Copenhagen
process and the likely rejection of cap-and-trade in Congress,
climate mania may have run its course.

It's not that easy to rid the world of these power hungry frauds short
of executing about 50 of the main ones. That's not likely so lynching
them is the only way.

On Feb 10, 6:41*pm, "James" wrote:
"Eric Gisin" wrote in message



http://article.nationalreview.com/42...mmerung/the-ed...

Dissenters who pointed out these and other flaws in the IPCC
consensus were demonized as deniers and ignored by the media, but
they are now vindicated. (The American media are still averting their
gaze, though the British press - even the left-wing Guardian and the
Independent - is turning on the climate campaigners with deserved
vengeance.) The IPCC is mumbling about non-specific reforms and
changes in the process shaping its next massive climate report, due
out in three or four years. The IPCC should emulate a typical feature
of American government commissions and include a minority report from
dissenters or scientists with a different emphasis. But the next IPCC
report may not matter much: With the collapse of the Kyoto-Copenhagen
process and the likely rejection of cap-and-trade in Congress,
climate mania may have run its course.

It's not that easy to rid the world of these power hungry frauds short
of executing about 50 of the main ones. That's not likely so lynching
them is the only way.

**** YOU ASSHOLE

"Peter Muehlbauer" wrote in message
enexpress.de
richp wrote:

On Feb 10, 6:41 pm, "James" wrote:
"Eric Gisin" wrote in message



http://article.nationalreview.com/42...mmerung/the-ed...

Dissenters who pointed out these and other flaws in the IPCC
consensus were demonized as deniers and ignored by the media, but
they are now vindicated. (The American media are still averting
their gaze, though the British press - even the left-wing Guardian
and the Independent - is turning on the climate campaigners with
deserved vengeance.) The IPCC is mumbling about non-specific
reforms and changes in the process shaping its next massive
climate report, due out in three or four years. The IPCC should
emulate a typical feature of American government commissions and
include a minority report from dissenters or scientists with a
different emphasis. But the next IPCC report may not matter much:
With the collapse of the Kyoto-Copenhagen process and the likely
rejection of cap-and-trade in Congress, climate mania may have run
its course.

It's not that easy to rid the world of these power hungry frauds
short of executing about 50 of the main ones. That's not likely so
lynching them is the only way.

**** YOU ASSHOLE

And you'll be the first.

No, no Peter. He can be used to say colorful last words for the 50.

On Feb 10, 6:41*pm, "James" wrote:
"Eric Gisin" wrote in message



http://article.nationalreview.com/42...mmerung/the-ed...

Dissenters who pointed out these and other flaws in the IPCC
consensus were demonized as deniers and ignored by the media, but
they are now vindicated. (The American media are still averting their
gaze, though the British press - even the left-wing Guardian and the
Independent - is turning on the climate campaigners with deserved
vengeance.) The IPCC is mumbling about non-specific reforms and
changes in the process shaping its next massive climate report, due
out in three or four years. The IPCC should emulate a typical feature
of American government commissions and include a minority report from
dissenters or scientists with a different emphasis. But the next IPCC
report may not matter much: With the collapse of the Kyoto-Copenhagen
process and the likely rejection of cap-and-trade in Congress,
climate mania may have run its course.

It's not that easy to rid the world of these power hungry frauds short
of executing about 50 of the main ones. That's not likely so lynching
them is the only way.

laughing, people like you are all bark and no bite

On Feb 11, 12:54*am, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
richp wrote:
On Feb 10, 6:41*pm, "James" wrote:
"Eric Gisin" wrote in message



http://article.nationalreview.com/42...mmerung/the-ed...

Dissenters who pointed out these and other flaws in the IPCC
consensus were demonized as deniers and ignored by the media, but
they are now vindicated. (The American media are still averting their
gaze, though the British press - even the left-wing Guardian and the
Independent - is turning on the climate campaigners with deserved
vengeance.) The IPCC is mumbling about non-specific reforms and
changes in the process shaping its next massive climate report, due
out in three or four years. The IPCC should emulate a typical feature
of American government commissions and include a minority report from
dissenters or scientists with a different emphasis. But the next IPCC
report may not matter much: With the collapse of the Kyoto-Copenhagen
process and the likely rejection of cap-and-trade in Congress,
climate mania may have run its course.

It's not that easy to rid the world of these power hungry frauds short
of executing about 50 of the main ones. That's not likely so lynching
them is the only way.

**** YOU ASSHOLE

And you'll be the first.

No if I find you first. Anyway you really do hate my guts