Guardian in defence of Skepical Science website (strangest name ever for a site that supports the Status Quo)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/apr/28/climate-change-denial-skeptical-science

Meltdown of the climate 'consensus'
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/meltdown_of_the_climate_consensus_G0kWdclUvwhVr6DYH6A4uJ

Green Schemes 'Wide Open to Corruption' - Independant May 1, 2011

reporting on a report by Transparency International - Global Corruption Report: Climate Change.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/green-schemes-are-wide-open-to-major-corruption-2277356.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/8482981/Climate-change-spending-at-risk-of-fraud-and-corruption.html

The report:

http://www.earthscan.co.uk/?TabId=102598&v=513344#dnn_ctr287477_ViewProductInfo_fragment3

I've been on holiday (no posts for a month) but I will carry on.

http://www.realclimategate.org/

The Pinocchio effect.

"The perfect storm of Obama's stonewalling and an establishment willing to cover up and lie for him, means that people legitimately distrust anything that comes out of his mouth or the media. In such an environment, a culture of conspiracy may be wrong, but not irrational. And it also means that there's no real way to prove or disprove anything anymore."

Greenfield correctly points out that, "The left's unprecedented corruption of government and media which could have played a watchdog role, means that those institutions can no longer serve as watchdogs, only propagandists. When you can no longer trust institutions, then you either drink the kool aid, or refuse to drink anything at all. The question isn't, are they lying, it's how much are they lying. And when you're dealing with that kind of framework, to 'trust' you have to argue that they would lie X amount, but not Y amount."

You see, not only have Liberals, via Obama, the media and corrupted institutions, brought havoc upon Liberty, the economy, our monetary system, energy production, world trade, and civil discourse, but they have declared war upon truth as well.

"Are we in a recovery or an economic disaster? If you believe the liars, we're in a recovery. And the only people denying it hate Socialism, which as we all know is code, for race. Is Global warming a serious problem? The liars say yes and anyone who disagrees is a racist who hates Third World countries that are suffering from Global Warming."

"If you agree with Obama, you're a liar. And if you disagree with him, you're a racist," Greenfield rightly concludes is the result of the left's own propaganda agenda, lies and cover-ups.

"You end up with two types of people. One type who believes everything the authorities say. The other who wouldn't believe them if they said the sun was shining."

Thus, Obama's legacy may very well be the destruction of truth itself.

We can only work for the betterment of our society if we can agree upon issues of substance. We can all agree that water is wet and that fire will burn, but real consensus requires truth, and honesty, which sadly the left has worked to destroy over the past few years.

Here's one for you Bish. On todays' Desert Island Discs, David Phillips, Emeritus Professor at Imperial College and President of the Royal Society of Chemistr is aked about his daughter and science. He says that when he asked her aged 15 about going into science she said no for two reason. First because her maths wasn't good enough and second because he worked too hard. She is now climate change policy officer for a big charity and she tells him what he should be thinking.

Sounds familiar.

PZ Myers has listed Peter Sinclair's youtube response to climategate as being a definitive overview. Hilariously, inept commenters pile on and get pretty much everything wrong, interspersed with the usual pharyngulite heckling.

Poster "Holms" is trying to set the record straight, but is a little outnumbered. Arguments against him include calling on his credentials (nobody was bothered that Peter Sinclair has no credentials... oh, never mind), and calling him a f***ing moron (top class ad homs are revered at PZ's place as long as they come from the right side of the argument).

Someone did actually try to engage (David Marjonovic) but claimed that CO2 caused the divergence... oops, that might be the case if tree ring widths were increasing while temperature dropped. Shame it was the exact reverse...

I would go over there but can't be bothered setting up an account. Plus the useful signal to noise ratio over there is practically nil.

Just been watching Piers Morgan interviewing Ann Widdecombe (ex-MP) on Life Stories.
What a pity he never got around to asking her for her views on climate change!
Here is what she has said on a previous occasion:

"It so happens that I know that an awful lot of people in our party - and by that I mean a lot - are deeply unhappy with the way that we've signed up apparently quite blindly to the climate change agenda.

"It isn't that they don't want sensible things like recycling, it isn't a silly rebellion.

"But there is a deep unease that we're rushing in virtually to a theology: those who asked questions are 'deniers'.

"The language is theological. We're rushing in to what has become a theology imposed by the equivalent of what has become the medieval church and that nobody's allowed to question it.

"And that even by questioning it, you're doing the world a massive disservice and bringing it under perdition."

Simon Singh seems to have a new web site (or at least new to me).

Here he gives "A dramatic and shocking demonstration of how your brain gets fooled to see something that is not there because of your biases, prejudices and expectations."

It really is worth watching the little video clip.

(Pity he didn't apply the same logic to climate science.)

This isn't going to go down well with many in the eco movement - an article of faith is challenged :-)