So, now Keith Olberman tells us that the fifteen-year long “global warming” campaign all along meant “climate change” and that this in turn means that places supposed to get hotter get hotter and that places that are supposed to get colder — under global warming, er, climate change — get colder. We got that.

And his contextual example of the places that are getting colder is the U.S. this winter, well they were supposed to be getting colder, because they are. That’s how we figure out what was supposed to happen under their  theory: by watching whatever happens. That was precisely what was predicted. Or, at least, now, in the new weasel-wording of journalists, “consistent with” what they and expected.

But a civilian has copied me on an email he sent to James Hansen of NASA, longtime advisor to Al Gore and the man who helped create the issue for political purposes in that June 1988 Senate hearing in which the press were made really hot to help their coverage by defeating the air conditioning in the hearing room. Because that helped prove their theory (that room was supposed to get warmer, so…). True story, according to the man who chaired the hearing. I wrote about  it in Red Hot Lies.

So this gentleman raised some specific about problematic claims by Hansen’s office at NASA with which I will not bore you, here. But he appends a few media stories that I just thought might interest you now that the establishment press, a wholly invested partner in the global warming industry, are telling you that warming doesn’t mean warming you fool it really means change which means cooling so there. Only the small-minded focus on warming as meaning warming. Remember that. (more…)

When even the New York Times finally picks up the pungent aroma of a scandal, you’ve gotta figure that the stench is overwhelming. Recently, the Times decided this bit of news was finally fit to repeat: that the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been playing fast and loose with scientific data regarding “climate change.” That story has only been buzzing about the blogosphere for weeks now, so hats off to the “newspaper of record” for taking notice of the situation with such alacrity.

This is a milestone of sorts. The Times has – finally – chosen to publish a story about global warming that did not primarily consist of Andrew Revkin’s fawning assurances that alarmists were the guardians of holy writ and skeptics are alchemists in the employ of Exxon-Mobil. Prior to this happy event, I thought the chances of the Senate passing a cap and trade bill were slim, but that the possibility still existed. Now that the New York Times has finally acknowledged that global warming skeptics may have a point or two after all, we may administer last rites to Waxman-Markey. Good riddance.

But how did we get here? Al Gore’s hucksterism and that silly movie of his, which any legitimate scientist – even among the alarmist crowd – has to laugh at, deserve a lot of the blame. But the biggest problem was the way that the old media and policy makers embraced the collectivist agenda of the IPCC. This shameful episode has been an object lesson of what happens when we follow Obama’s doctrine of following the lead of the would-be global government crowd, rather than letting America and her allies lead the globe toward a bright future. (more…)

If you were around in the sixties, you remember the scene: the family gathers around the TV, listening to Mercury astronaut Wally Schirra explain in delicious detail what was about to happen as a digital clock on the corner of the screen wound its way down to zero, ever so slowly. Then – finally – the roar of the mightiest engines every built. The cheers. The majestic sight of a Saturn V creeping up past the launch gantry as mission control solemnly declared: “Lift off. We have lift off at seven minutes past the hour.”

It was heady stuff, in a world of endless possibilities. We knew, without a doubt, that we could go anywhere, do anything and that we would continue to answer the burning human question that has driven mankind to new heights for millennia: what’s out there?

The President of the United States, according to this story in the Orlando Sentinel, doesn’t seem to share that sense of wonder or to understand the educational, societal and economic value that comes along with indulging natural human curiosity about the universe we live in. If he has his way, Obama will replace the sonorous call to “boldly go where no man has gone before” with a mere murmur, to blandly study what everyone has been studying for years. (more…)