All errors should be reported to

Saturday, June 06, 2015

What the left calls science normal people call lies

I have anticipated this moment for a long, long time -- the truth coming out about carbon dioxide having no ill effect on the weather.

Now we have admissions that global warming "facts" are all lies.

From the Daily Caller:
Scientists may have lied about the EPA’s involvement in a recent study put out earlier this year claiming Obama administration regulations on carbon dioxide emissions will save thousands of lives every year.
Emails obtained by the blog’s Steve Milloy show Harvard University and Syracuse University researchers involved in the study consulted with the EPA while conducting their study, contradicting their previous statements the study was done independently of the agency.
“Emails obtained from EPA through the Freedom of Information Act show that Harvard University, Syracuse University and two researchers falsely claimed a study supporting EPA’s upcoming global warming rules was conducted ‘independent’ of the agency,” Milloy wrote.
In May, scientists released a study finding the EPA’s so-called “Clean Power Plan” — which aims to reduce CO2 emissions 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 — would prevent 3,500 premature deaths every year because cutting CO2 emissions will also lower traditional air pollutants and allegedly save lives.
Carbon dioxide is a nutrient for the very plants that are the basis of life on this planet. For years lefties have ridiculed doubters for their faith in God and their belief that man-made global warming is man-made lies.

You cannot legislate science and it is not based on a show of hands.


  1. Over the years, the co-authors have received upwards of $45 million in competitive grants from the EPA, not one of which was acknowledged at the end of the science paper. Now it is possible the funding from EPA was unrelated to the work that was the subject of the paper. However, academics don't normally keep track of their work hours like lawyers do in order to charge their time to particular research grants, so it's entirely possible the work was, in fact, indirectly or ultimately paid by EPA but not properly acknowledged by the authors. In other words, it is possible the authors covered up a potential conflict of interest by not mentioning one of their major sources of funding. Now recall this is how some climate warmists tried to smear the reputation of Dr. Willie Soon, also at Harvard, by accusing him of fraudulently tailoring his science to suit his funding sources in the the energy industry. Touché.

  2. The latest pew research shows that just 11 percent of respondents list AGW as a serious issue. Yet to hear it be told they have 98 percent of the world on their side and its just that pesky 2 percent thats holding up the whole show.

    In reality do not forget about Astro-Turfing....progressives paid to troll blog sites and to ridicule the right in their anti-AGW stance. There is huge money to be made in AGW witchery and the AGW truthers plan on collecting on every dime they can.

  3. They've been lying about this since the '70s.