Home » Climate change, Global Warming » Climategate: When Ann Coulter and Jon Stewart agree …

Climategate: When Ann Coulter and Jon Stewart agree …

… then you know that the fraud is real:

Ann Coulter at Townhall

Jon Stewart on the Daily Show

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

27 Responses to Climategate: When Ann Coulter and Jon Stewart agree …

  1. Does Ann Coulter also agree with the later part of the Daily Show when Jon Stewart said, “Now, does it disprove global warming? No, of course not, but it is ‘catnip’ to deniers.” That would seem to be far different than “completely debunked,” which on a comedy show, might be used for, maybe, humor’s sake….

  2. My guess is that Ann Coulter when pushed would admit that there has been some global warming but would say as I say that there is no proof as to cause or what we are observing is nothing more than what has happened before such as the Medieval Warming Period. Also we are unsure as to the magnitude of the warming. That is the issue. Some want to move all of the economies of the world to combat something that maybe doesn’t exist and we know the reasons for this.

  3. Hello WIlliam,
    Have you recently found yourself fantasizing about the outing of a similar cache of email correspondence from the innermost circle of Darwinists? What types of data might they be conspiring to manipulate and misrepresent? Who might be on their hit list? What measures might they be taking to block ID research from being published in leading journals?

    Michael

  4. olin @1

    John Stewart’s schtick did not support his conclusion. In other words, the relevant facts were in the comedy, but his conclusion said the opposite. So, yes, John debunked AGW, he just wouldn’t ultimately admit it.

  5. See CBC’s devastating critique by Rex Murphy on Climategate.

    “You wouldn’t accept that at a grad 9 science fair”

    At Youtube:
    Rex Murphy on Climategate

  6. DLH: Good point. A test of a scientific theory might be how it fares at a grade school/high school science fair.

  7. My daughter said that Rex Murphy’s comparison of CRU with 9th grade science was demeaning to 9th graders! They have higher ethical standards.

    Prof. Fred Singer and Lord Monckton filed a criminal complaint against Prof. Phil Jones and CRU for breaching the UK’s Freedom of Information Act 2000.

    Prof Jones . . .said destroy the data. That is a criminal offense. We have reported Prof. Jones, and the University and the Freedom of Information officer there and the Research Unit to the Information Commissioner, and we have asked him to investigate and prosecute those responsible…

    At Science and Public Policy, Lord Monckton prepared a 42 page report: Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!

    See also: Viscount Monckton on Climategate: ‘They Are Criminals’

    Corbett interviews Dr. Tim Bull on: Climategate The Backstory who explains the problem of scientists “cooking the books”.

  8. The ethical challenges of ClimateGate raise the underlying issue: Cap and Trade, or Carbon Taxes hit the poor the hardest. See:

    Evangelicals Say Poor, Minorities Will Be Hardest Hit By Climate Legislation. “Religious Coalition Calls On Congress To Care For “The Least Of These” “ PDF

    A Renewed Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor
    “An Evangelical Examination of the Theology, Science, and Economics of Global Warming”

    See: Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming Summary, Full PDF

  9. I think there will be some misuse of what a climate change skeptic means. Is this someone that rejects or denies the notion that the earth was been or was recently in a warming trend? In other words, that there was some kind of warming trend for a period of time, before ten years ago, is nto really the big question. Spinsters will point at that warming trend and say, “SEE..it’s warming!”. But I don’t know of skeptics that will deny a time with a warming trend… Rather they deny any correlation of warming and CO2 with CO2 as the causal factor, and especially CO2 produces during man’s activities.

    So, global warming alarmist may spin this to call the skeptics deniers (of any global warming) as a strawman victory.

    However, it’s ironic in a way. The global warming fanatics won’t listne to the fact that the medival times were much warmer than today – an exmaple that has been provided suggesting vineyards grown in the north part of today’s UK.

    So, the irony, is that global warming fanatics are in actuality the true climate change deniers…while the skeptics are holding that climate change is completely normal and expected with natural processes alone.

    It’s veyr frustrating to see the mindless drones that look up to al Gore as some kind of enivornmental prophet…. the only association of Al Gore being a prophet is the profit he will make while thrusting the world into – his words – “global governance”.

  10. Climategate Investigator Is Member Of Vehemently Pro-Man Made Global Warming Organization
    by Paul Joseph Watson
    Prison Planet.com
    Friday, December 4, 2009

    A civil servant who is a member of one of the most vehemently pro man-made global warming advocacy organizations in Europe which also has direct ties to the IPCC has been handed the job of whitewashing the investigation into the University of East Anglia, while absurdly billing himself as impartial and unconnected to climate science.

    Meanwhile, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has ludicrously announced that it will conduct its own investigation into the climategate scandal, despite the fact that the suspects involved have intimate ties to the IPCC, with one of the primary scientists accused of manipulating climate data being a lead author of the 1995, 2001, and 2007 IPCC reports…

  11. A site to track some of the legal updates in the UK:

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/

  12. “A Simple Proof that Global Warming is not Man-made”

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy......_proof.pdf

  13. The major point in all of this is that we have been led to believe that “scientists” are a special, absolutely sin-resistant special breed of humanity, who would never falsify data for any purpose, even when hundreds of millions of dollars in research grants are at stake, and even when a lifetime of pursuing an ephemeral, phantom, wrong theory is at stake (which would mean for the perpetrator that he basically squandered his professional life for a lie).

    Does anyone really believe that “scientists” are any more resistant to these temptations than the rest of us?

    On this subject one must really give credit to Antony Flew. Such people are very rare, and are to be admired and emulated.

  14. For the numerate, this is an interesting analysis of news coverage on climate gate vs. web searches:

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.c.....index.html

  15. SpitfireIXA @4

    You are incorrect. There is nothing in Jon Stewart’s piece that “debunked AGW.” That would actually require, perhaps, looking at data (and multiple sets of data at that). There is no significant critical analysis of any data in either Jon’s or Anne’s piece, and hence neither debunks (or supports, for that matter) AGW. That is the only respect in which they “agree.”

    Argumentation by hyperlink with no context is not effective IMHO.

  16. Jon Stewart, although left of center, is kind of like Michael Shermer. You could probably go out and have a drink with him, and while finding much to disagree about, still be respectful and friends at the end of the day. I don’t know Stewart’s actual views on global warming but he’s probably not an “activist” of any kind. On the other hand, it might be diffcult to shoot a game of pool with Richard Dawkins or PZ without a fight breaking out. I am sure we all have friends like that.

  17. Wow, Monkton and Murphy were great. But what is the chance that scientists involved in evolution research and climate research are the only tainted ones?

    I hope, long, wait, and pray for the day when the cancer-pharmaceutical industries are likewise exposed.

  18. The ID community has done a great job at exposing how the leftest-atheist agenda stains the scientific community in the areas of evolution and origins. (although to be fair, thanks must go to the likes of Dawkins and PZ for making this task so easy :-) )

    I’m curious if there’re links between the leftest-atheist ideology and the scientists at the heart of climategate.

    Michael-”Hide the Decline”-Mann has written that Carl Sagan is a hero of his. And Sagan often appeared driven by ideology, not science, in getting his materialistic worldview across.

    Any stronger links?

  19. leftest=leftist!

  20. Off topic, a possibility where politics, business and national policy intertwine in a disturing and rude way:

    http://biggovernment.com/2009/.....more-41222

  21. tribune7,

    ‘M and M’ stick in craw of climate-change crew

    Thanks for that link, I sincerely enjoyed that article.

  22. 25

    Yes, thanks tribune7

    I wonder if M and M have found it any warmer in Canada recently. I suspect they get a cold reception there too.

  23. Thank you Clive & Cannuckian.

    Here’s another one which the Washington Post apparently put above the fold in today’s edition.

    Note the bias as the story begins “It began with an anonymous Internet posting, and a link to a wonky set of e-mails and files. Stolen, apparently, from a research center in Britain . . .”

    Now, I don’t know if you are old enough to remember but do you think the WaPo would ever describe the Pentagon Papers as “top secret documents stolen from the Department of Defense”?

    Times change.

  24. Yeah, such a conspiracy.

Leave a Reply