Global Warming Page 5

-- Govt Scientists Often Change Weather Data for US - 3/10/15
-- Immer mehr Wissenschaftler haben oft Ändern Wetter Daten für US- - 15/03/10
-- The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever - 2/07/15
-- Fälschung Temperatur Daten ist der größte Wissenschaft Skandal immer wieder - 18/7/02
-- The climate pact swindle - 12/01/14
-- Another Earth Warming Snow Job - 1/29/15
-- The coming ass age - 3/21/07
Home     Back

 Govt Scientists Often Change Weather Data for US
Tuesday, March 10, 2015 06:30 AMBy: Jason Devaney

Government scientists are deliberately changing climate data, which shows a warming trend in the United States as opposed to a cooling trend, according to a report.

The Daily Caller reports the practice of altering temperature data is not new — nor is it a secret. Scientists say it is for correcting errors in data, particularly in the early years of record keeping.

Critics say the practice is an effort to show global warming is a real, man-made phenomenon that is getting worse year by year.

"[The National Climatic Data Center] pulls every trick in the book to turn the U.S. cooling trend into warming. The raw data shows cooling since the 1920s," a science blogger who goes by the name Steven Goddard told The Daily Caller.

"NCDC does a hockey stick of adjustments to reverse the trend. This includes cooling the past for 'time of observation bias' in filling missing rural data with urban temperatures, and doing almost nothing to compensate for urban heat island effects."

Another expert in the field, climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer, said he noticed a significant difference in climate data when he was updating some figures using the NCDC's website. The data he looked at this month was different than what he looked at last March — data taken from the same time period.

"I was updating a U.S. Corn Belt summer temperature and precipitation dataset from the NCDC website, and all of a sudden the no-warming-trend-since-1900 turned into a significant warming trend," Spencer wrote on his blog Monday.

Spencer calculated the warming trend for that region of the U.S. increased from 0.2 degrees per century to 0.6 degrees per century after the data was changed, the Caller reported.

"A variety of errors in data measurement and collection would typically have both positive and negative signs," Spencer wrote. "In contrast, the thermometer data apparently need to be adjusted in such a way that almost always leads to greater and greater warming trends."

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration claims it tweaks temperature figures to account for factors like the time of day the temperature was recorded and concerns with land versus ocean data.

By shifting the official temperature reading from any given day to the morning instead of the afternoon, a warming trend was created, reports The Daily Caller.

This is not the first time government scientists have been accused of manipulating weather data to show a warming trend. Last month, a report claimed data from weather stations in South America has been adjusted since the 1950s to help support the theory of global warming.

Global warming has a deep history, dating back to scientists in the 1700s who planted the seeds of the issue that has become almost as political as it is scientific.


 Immer mehr Wissenschaftler haben oft Ändern Wetter Daten für US-
Dienstag, 10. MÄRZ 2015 06:30 Amby: Jason Devaney
Regierung Wissenschaftler sind bewusst ändern Klima Daten, die zeigt, dass der Temperaturanstieg in den Vereinigten Staaten im Gegensatz zu einer Kühlung trend, nach einem Bericht.
Die Daily Caller meldet die Praxis eine Änderung der Temperatur Daten nicht neu ist - noch ist es ein Geheimnis. Wissenschaftler sagen, dass es für die Korrektur von Fehlern in Daten, vor allem in den frühen Jahren der record keeping.
Kritiker sagen, die Praxis ist ein Projekt, um Anzeigen globale Erwärmung ist eine echte, vom Menschen verursachtes Phänomen, es wird immer schlimmer von Jahr zu Jahr.
" [Das National Climatic Data Center] zieht jeden Trick im Buch um den US-amerikanischen Kühlung Trend in Erwärmung. Die raw-Daten zeigt Kühlung seit den 1920er Jahren", ein science Blogger, mit dem Namen Steven Goddard sagte der Anrufer.
"NCDC ist ein Hockey Stick von Anpassungen, den Trend umzukehren. Dies umfasst auch die Kühlung der Vergangenheit für "Zeit der Beobachtung bias" bei der Besetzung des ländlichen Raums fehlen Daten zu den städtischen Ballungsräumen Temperaturen, und tut fast nichts zum Ausgleich für Urban heat island effects." Ein anderer
Experte auf dem Gebiet, Klimawissenschaftler Dr. Roy Spencer, sagte, er fiel auf, dass ein signifikanter Unterschied im Klima Daten, wenn er war Aktualisierung einige Zahlen über die NCDC's website. Die Angaben, die er sah in diesem Monat war anders, als das, was er sah am letzten März - Die Daten stammen aus der gleichen Zeit.
"Ich war beim Aktualisieren einer U. S. Corn Belt Sommer Temperatur und Niederschläge in Dataset aus der NCDC Website, und ganz plötzlich hat das nicht-Erwärmung-Trend-seit-1900 zu einem deutlichen Temperaturanstieg", Spencer schrieb in seinem Blog Montag.
Spencer berechnet der Temperaturanstieg für die Region der USA stieg von 0,2 Grad pro Jahrhundert um 0,6 Grad pro Jahrhundert nach den Daten geändert wurden und die Anrufer gemeldet.
"Eine ganze Reihe von Fehlern in Daten Messung und Datenerfassung normalerweise haben sowohl positive als auch negative Symptome", Spencer schrieb. "Im Gegensatz dazu, das Thermometer Daten offenbar eingestellt werden müssen, in einer Weise, dass führt fast immer zu einem größeren und stärkeren Erwärmung trends."
Die National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration behauptet, sie tweaks Temperatur zahlen den Faktoren wie die Tageszeit, zu der die Temperatur aufgezeichnet wurde und sorgen mit Land gegenüber Ocean Daten.
Durch die Verschiebung des offiziellen Temperatur Auslesen von einem Tag auf den nächsten Morgen anstatt der Nachmittag, ein Temperaturanstieg erstellt wurde, berichtet die Zeitung.
Es ist nicht das erste Mal Regierung Wissenschaftler beschuldigt wurden für die Bearbeitung von Wetterdaten zu einem Temperaturanstieg. Letzten Monat, einen Bericht behaupteten Daten von Wetterstationen in Südamerika eingestellt wurde, seit den 1950er Jahren zur Unterstützung der Theorie der globalen Erwärmung.
Die Erderwärmung hat eine reiche Geschichte, die bis ins Jahr Wissenschaftler in den 1700er Jahren, der pflanzte die Samen des Problem, dass es fast schon als politische wie wissenschaftliche.

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever.

New data shows that the “vanishing” of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming

When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.

This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.

Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.

Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.

One of the first examples of these “adjustments” was exposed in 2007 by the statistician Steve McIntyre, when he discovered a paper published in 1987 by James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical climate activist) who for many years ran Giss. Hansen’s original graph showed temperatures in the Arctic as having been much higher around 1940 than at any time since. But as Homewood reveals in his blog post, “Temperature adjustments transform Arctic history”, Giss has turned this upside down. Arctic temperatures from that time have been lowered so much that that they are now dwarfed by those of the past 20 years.

Homewood’s interest in the Arctic is partly because the “vanishing” of its polar ice (and the polar bears) has become such a poster-child for those trying to persuade us that we are threatened by runaway warming. But he chose that particular stretch of the Arctic because it is where ice is affected by warmer water brought in by cyclical shifts in a major Atlantic current – this last peaked at just the time 75 years ago when Arctic ice retreated even further than it has done recently. The ice-melt is not caused by rising global temperatures at all.

Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.

A German Translation

 Fälschung Temperatur Daten ist der größte Wissenschaft Skandal immer wieder

Neue daten zeigen, dass das "Verschwinden" von polar ice ist nicht das Ergebnis von Runaway globale Erwärmung

Wenn zukünftige Generationen blicken zurück auf die globale Erwärmung hat Angst vor der letzten 30 Jahre, nichts wird Schlag ihnen mehr als das Ausmaß, in dem die offizielle Temperatur Rekorde - auf dem die ganze Panik schließlich ausgeruht - wurden systematisch "angepasst" an, die die Erde als aufgewärmt viel mehr als die eigentlichen Daten gerechtfertigt.

Vor zwei Wochen, unter dem Titel "Wie sind wir ausgetrickst werden durch fehlerhafte Daten über die globale Erwärmung", ich schrieb über Paul Homewood, der auf seinem Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, habe die Temperatur veröffentlicht Diagramme für drei Wetterstationen in Paraguay gegen die Temperaturen, hatte ursprünglich festgestellt worden. In jedem Fall die tatsächliche Entwicklung von 60 Jahren Daten wurden dramatisch rückgängig gemacht, so dass eine Kühlung Trend wurde ein anderes, dass sich eine deutliche Erwärmung.

Dies war nur der jüngste von vielen Beispielen für eine Praxis seit langem von einem erfahrenen Beobachter auf der ganzen Welt - eine, die sich einem immer größeren Fragezeichen über die gesamte offizielle Oberfläche-temperatur aufnehmen.

Nach meiner letzten Artikel, Homewood ?berpr?ft ein großer Teil der anderen südamerikanischen Wetter Stationen rund um die ursprünglichen drei. In jedem Fall fand er die gleichen verdächtigen one-way "Einstellungen". Zuerst wurden von der US-Regierung der globalen historischen Climate Network (GHCN). Sie wurden dann verstärkt durch zwei der wichtigsten offiziellen Oberfläche Datensätze, das Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) und die National Climate Data Center (NCDC) , die mit der Erwärmung Trends zu schätzen Temperaturen in den weiten Regionen der Erde, wo keine Messungen durchgeführt werden. Und doch werden sie sehr Akten, auf die Wissenschaftler und Politiker sich für ihren Glauben in "globale Erwärmung".

Homewood hat jetzt wandte seine Aufmerksamkeit zu den Wetterstationen in großen Teilen der Arktis zwischen Kanada (51 Grad W) und das Herz Sibiriens (87 Grad E). Noch einmal, in fast allen Fällen die gleiche ein-weg Anpassungen vorgenommen wurden, um Erwärmung bis zu 1 Grad Celsius oder mehr höher als angegeben wurde durch die Daten, die sich tatsächlich aufgenommen wird. Das hat niemanden mehr als Traust Jonsson, der lange in der Klimaforschung für die Island Met Office (und mit wem Homewood wurde in touch). Jonsson war erstaunt zu sehen, wie die neue Version komplett "verschwindet" Island's "sea ice Jahre" um 1970, wenn eine Zeit der extreme Kühlung fast zerstörte die Wirtschaft seines Landes.

Eines der ersten Beispiele für diese "Anpassungen" ausgesetzt war im Jahr 2007 durch die Statistiker Steve McIntyre, wenn entdeckte er ein Papier veröffentlicht im Jahr 1987 von James Hansen, der Wissenschaftler (später als fanatischen Klima Aktivist), die für viele Jahre lief giss. Hansen's Original Grafik zeigte Temperaturen in der Arktis als viel mehr um 1940 als zu jeder anderen Zeit seit. Aber als Homewood offenbart in seinem Blog Post, "Temperatur Einstellungen verändern Arktis Geschichte", giss hat die Oberseite nach unten. Arktische Temperaturen aus, dass bereits seit einiger Zeit nach unten, so viel, daß sie sind jetzt ziemlich mickrig im Vergleich zu denen der letzten 20 Jahre.

Homewood's Interesse an der Arktis ist zum Teil darauf zurückzuführen, dass die "Verschwindende" seiner polar ice (und die Eisbären) hat sich wie ein Plakat-kind für die versuchen uns zu überzeugen, dass wir bedroht sind von Runaway warming. Doch er entschied sich dafür, dass insbesondere auf Strecken von der Arktis weil es ist, wo Eis ist betroffen durch wärmere Wasser brachte in der zyklischen Verschiebungen in einer großen atlantischen Strom - Dieser letzte Höhepunkt in der kurzen Zeit vor 75 Jahren beim Arctic Ice zogen sich noch weiter als es hat vor kurzem durchgeführt. Die Eis-melt ist nicht durch die steigenden globalen Temperaturen.

Viel mehr ernsthafte Bedeutung, ist jedoch die Art und Weise dieser Großhandel Manipulation der offiziellen Temperatur aufzeichnen - aus Gründen GHCN und giss habe noch nie plausibel erklärbar geworden ist - die echten Elefanten im Zimmer der größte und teuerste erschrecken die Welt kennengelernt hat. Dies beginnt sich wie eine der größten wissenschaftlichen Skandale aller Zeiten

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever
New data shows that the “vanishing” of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming

 The climate pact swindle

By: Charles Krauthammer    12/1/2014     For Human Events

Historic. Such is the ubiquitous description of the climate agreement recently announced in Beijing between Barack Obama and Xi Jinping in which China promised for the first time to cap carbon emissions.

If this were a real breakthrough, I’d be an enthusiastic supporter. I have long advocated for a tangible global agreement to curb carbon. I do remain skeptical about the arrogant, ignorant claim that climate science is “settled,” that it can predict with accuracy future “global warming” effects and that therefore we must cut emissions radically, immediately and unilaterally if necessary, even at potentially ruinous economic and social cost.

I nonetheless believe (and have written since 1988) that pumping increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere cannot be a good thing. We don’t know nearly enough about the planet’s homeostatic mechanisms for dealing with it, but prudence would dictate reducing CO2 emissions when and where we can.

However, anything beyond that, especially the radical unilateralism advocated by climate alarmists, would be not just economic suicide but economic suicide without purpose. It would do nothing to reduce atmospheric CO2 as long as China, India and the other developing nations more than make up for our cuts with their huge and increasing carbon emissions.

China alone is firing up a new coal plant every eight to 10 days. We could close every coal mine in Kentucky and West Virginia and achieve absolutely nothing except devastating Appalachia and, in effect, shipping its economic lifeblood to China.

The only way forward on greenhouse gases is global reduction by global agreement. A pact with China would be a good start.

Unfortunately, the Obama-Xi agreement is nothing of the sort. It is a fraud of Gruberian (as in Jonathan) proportions. Its main plank commits China to begin cutting carbon emissions 16 years from now. On the other hand, the United States, having already cut more carbon emissions than any nation on earth since 2005, must now double its current rate of carbon cutting to meet a new, more restrictive goal by 2025. In return for which, China will keep increasing its carbon emissions year after year throughout that period — and for five years beyond.

If this sounds like the most one-sided deal since Manhattan sold for $24 in 1626, you heard right. It becomes even more absurd when you realize that, according to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, China was on track to plateau its carbon emissions around 2030 anyway because of a projected slowdown in urbanization, population growth and heavy industry production. We cut, they coast.

The carbon-emission graph is stark. China’s line is nearly vertical; America’s is already inflected and headed downward. The Obama-Xi agreement simply ratifies U.S. unilateralism — the U.S. line declines even more steeply, while China’s continues rocketing upward unmolested.

Proponents of the Obama-Xi deal will then point to a second provision: China’s promise to produce 20 percent of its energy from non-carbon sources by 2030. But China had already been planning to begin substituting for its immense use of fossil fuels (mainly by using nuclear power) because Chinese cities are being choked to death by theirtraditional pollutants — sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury compounds, particulates, etc.

These are serious health hazards. CO2 is not. Whatever its atmospheric effects, CO2 does not poison the air. So in return for yet another Chinese transition that has nothing to do with CO2, Obama has committed the United States to drastic CO2 cuts.

Moreover, beyond substance, there is process. Or more accurately, its absence. What’s the structure to sustain and verify the agreement? Where are the benchmarks? What are the enforcement mechanisms? This is just a verbal promise. Nothing more. Sixteen years from now, China is supposed to remind the world of its commitments and begin cutting?

I repeat: I would unequivocally support a real agreement with the Chinese where they cut contemporaneously and commensurately with the United States and where there is built-in reporting and independent verification. Such a bilateral agreement would need to be internationalized by bringing in such rising powers as India, Brazil, Indonesia, etc. This would be a breakthrough.

Climate enthusiasts will say that I refuse to take yes for an answer. Of course I would take yes for an answer. But the Obama-Xi agreement is not yes. It is “check back with me in 16 years.” Aren’t the people advocating this deal the same garment-rending climate apocalypticists who’ve been warning of irreversible planetary changes beginning now, and the supreme imperative of acting immediately?

Except, you see, for China, the world’s No. 1 carbon polluter. It gets a 16-year pass.

 Another Earth Warming Snow Job

Cal Thomas | Jan 29, 2015

The network meteorologists barely had time to come up for air while "forecasting" the latest snowstorm non-disaster. Politicians, fearing what might happen to their approval numbers if a blizzard hit, went on TV to announce they were taking proactive measures. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio shut down tunnels, bridges, even the subway to prepare for the worst. Governors Andrew Cuomo and Chris Christie announced road closings in New York and New Jersey.

When wide-scale devastation failed to materialize, though New England was hardest hit, those same forecasters explained that snow is "unpredictable" and began backtracking faster than a four-wheel drive pickup on an icy road.

One year ago, on January 31, we were treated to another of these "Snowmageddon" scenarios. At the time, USA Today quoted Gary Szatkowski, a meteorologist at the National Weather Service, as saying: "It's a little surprising that people are falling for this."

I'm not surprised. People are gullible. Look at our politicians.

Here's some "breaking news": It's January and in many parts of America, it snows; sometimes a lot. When I was a kid I got my sled and, together with other kids celebrating the snow day, took to the hills. We threw snowballs and came home soaked and exhausted. Mother would hang my wet clothes on a radiator to dry.

Today, politicians and their ideological fellow travelers in the media use the normal cycles of the seasons to promote "climate change." That was the conclusion of Bill Nye of MSNBC, who said, "I just want to introduce the idea that this storm is connected to climate change." Gov. Andrew Cuomo made the same assertion.

For those not buying into the cult of climate change, formerly known as "global warming," the website is an excellent source for authoritative science and reporting that debunks the claims of climate alarmists.

Recently, we heard assertions from some "reliable" people that 2014 was the hottest year on record. News anchors and reporters dutifully, and without their usual skepticism, conveyed the news as fact. The Associated Press reported that 2014 was the hottest year, citing NOAA and NASA data, but was later forced to clarify its story, conceding that it "...did not include the caveat that other recent years had average temperatures that were almost as high -- and they all fall within a margin of error that lessens the certainty that any one of the years was the hottest." NOAA and NASA also quietly had to concede that 2014 was probably not the warmest year, but I would venture to guess that very few people noticed the update.

Facts do not lessen the belief of cult members.

Consider some of the statements posted on from scientists who question the honesty of those producing climate change "evidence."

Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer says the public is being misled: "I am embarrassed by the scientific community's behavior on the subject."

Former Harvard physicist Dr. Lubos Motl: "NASA's Gavin Schmidt knew about this fact. That didn't prevent them from pushing virtually all mainstream media to publish the lie -- in the very title -- that NASA was declaring 2014 the warmest year."

Real Science accused NASA's Schmidt of "cheating" to "create the required talking point" of the "hottest year."

Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball accused NASA's Schmidt of "climate deception": "'Schmidt knows, after all his years with participating in the creation and naming of the web site, that it is all about the headline.'"

As blogger Tom Nelson has correctly observed, NASA's Gavin Schmidt "is referee and commentator, along with his paid job as coach and cheerleader for one side."

The one-sided reporting and blind faith in climate change has infected politicians who are incapable of balancing the federal budget. So why put faith in them -- or the meteorologists who track with them -- that they can do anything other than talk about the weather?

 The coming ass age

3/21/2007     Ann Coulter

No matter how much liberals try to dress up their nutty superstitions about global warming as "science," which only six-fingered lunatics could doubt, scratch a global warming "scientist" and you get a religious fanatic.

These days, new religions are barely up and running before they seize upon the worst aspects of the God-based religions.

First, there's the hypocrisy and corruption. At the 1992 Democratic Convention in New York, Al Gore said: "The central organizing principle of governments everywhere must be the environment." The environment would not, however, be the central organizing principle of Gore's own life.

The only place Al Gore conserves energy these days is on the treadmill. I don't want to suggest that Al's getting big, but the last time I saw him on TV I thought, "That reminds me -- we have to do something about saving the polar bears."

Never mind his carbon footprint -- have you seen the size of Al Gore's regular footprint lately? It's almost as deep as Janet Reno's.

But I digress. As has been widely reported, Gore's Tennessee mansion consumes 20 times the energy of the average home in that state. But it's OK, according to the priests of global warming. Gore has purchased "carbon offsets."

It took the Catholic Church hundreds of years to develop corrupt practices such as papal indulgences. The global warming religion has barely been around for 20 years, and yet its devotees are allowed to pollute by the simple expedient of paying for papal indulgences called "carbon offsets."

Americans spend an extra $2.2 billion on gas a year because they're overweight, requiring more fuel in cars to carry the extra pounds. So even with all those papal indulgences, Gore may have a small carbon footprint, but he has a huge carbon butt-print.

Further proving that liberalism is a religion, its practitioners respond with the zeal of Torquemada to any dissent from the faith in global warming.

A few years ago, Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg wrote a book titled "The Skeptical Environmentalist," disputing the hysteria surrounding global warming and other environmentalist scares. Lomborg is a Greenpeace anti-war protester -- or, as he is described on liberal Web sites, he is a "young, gay vegetarian Dane with tight T-shirts." His book was cited favorably in The New York Times.

But for questioning the "science" behind global warming, Lomborg was brought up on charges of "scientific misconduct" by Denmark's Inquisition Court, called the "Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation." I take it Denmark's Ministry of Truth was booked solid that day.

The moment anyone diverges from official church doctrine on global warming, he is threatened with destruction. Heretics would be burnt at the stake if liberals could figure out how to do it in a "carbon neutral" way.

Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball is featured in the new documentary debunking global warming, titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle." For this heresy, Ball has received hate mail with such messages as, "If you continue to speak out, you won't live to see further global warming."

I'm against political writers whining about their hate mail because it makes them sound like Paul Krugman. But that's political writers arguing about ideology.

Global warming is supposed to be "science." It's hard to imagine Niels Bohr responding to Albert Einstein's letter questioning quantum mechanics with a statement like: "If you continue to speak out, you won't live to see further quantum mechanics."

Come to think of it, one can't imagine the pope writing a letter to Jerry Falwell saying, "If you continue to speak out, you won't live to see further infallibility."

If this is how global warming devotees defend their scientific theory, it may be a few tweaks short of a scientific theory. Scientific facts are not subject to liberal bullying -- which, by the way, is precisely why liberals hate science.

A few years ago, The New York Times ran an article about the continuing furious debates among physicists about quantum mechanics, which differs from global warming in the sense that it is supported by physical evidence and it doesn't make you feel good inside to "do something" about quantum mechanics. It is, in short, science.

Though he helped develop the theory of quantum mechanics, Einstein immediately set to work attacking it. MIT cosmologist Max Tegmark called the constant testing and arguing about quantum mechanics "a 75-year war."

That's how a real scientific theory operates. That's even how a real religion operates. Only a false religion needs hate mail, threats, courts of inquisition and Hollywood movies to sustain it.