US Action News

Undaunted by a rash of scandals over the science underpinning climate change, top climate researchers are plotting to respond with what one scientist involved said needs to be “an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach” to gut the credibility of skeptics.

Today’s global warming hysteria is the hoax of the 21st century. H.L. Mencken had it right: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

After the incessant propaganda of melting glaciers, rising seas, vanishing rain forests and polar bears dropping out of the sky, the global hysteria crowd succeeded in their ultimate goal of reducing the human population to ‘save the planet’.

In other words, in crucial respects the IPCC’s 2007 report was no more than reckless propaganda, designed to panic the world’s politicians into agreeing at Copenhagen in 2009 that we should all pay by far the largest single bill ever presented to the human race, amounting to tens of trillions of dollars.
Its all about money and control.

Sen. Kerry working with Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman to craft new climate and energy bill

Still, we would not have gone so far as to say that global warming was just a hoax. Surely there was some actual science to back it, even if there was a lot less certainty than was claimed.

Now, though, we’re wondering if this was too charitable a view. London’s Sunday Times reports that scientists are “casting doubt” on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s “claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution,” a claim the IPCC describes as “unequivocal”:

Well, let’s see — could it be because we’re not the people advancing extraordinary claims about man-made influence on global weather patterns? This must be some new, previously unknown tenet of the Scientific Method, wherein people who point out errors, bias, bad process, and unsubstantiated claims from scientists are somehow required to disprove their unsupported hypotheses.

The Grand Canyon State avoids a big economic hole by suspending its participation in a multistate initiative to fight climate change. As climate fraud is exposed, economic reality sets in. Will California follow?