A letter to the LA Times

I suppose it shouldn't aggravate me to see arm after arm of the state ministry of propaganda deliberately skew and marginalize what's contained in the leaks out of the University of East Anglia CRU. We know they're controlled. We can't expect actual truth to be written. Unfortunately these organs, such as the Los Angeles Times, still have millions of readers who aren't aware that the government controls the press, and nothing is contained within these papers that hasn't been thoroughly vetted and cleansed of anything too inconvenient.

So here's a response which I submitted to the paper, and will likely never see the light of day outside of this blog, to a ridiculous hit piece penned by some clown named Tim Rutton, titled The silliness of Climategate, in which he, naturally, dismisses the content and effect of the leaked data, and of course doesn't bother himself to show his readers what it actually says. I recommend all of you to do the same, to the Los Angeles Times and anywhere else you see this blatant disinformation taking place.

Tim Rutton must take his readers for ignorant fools. In his editorial, The Silliness of Climategate, he dismisses out of hand the information in the emails and data without bothering to disclose to his readers what the emails actually say. This is part and parcel for media hacks for the climate change fraud, who generally claim the emails are taken out of context and don't disclose much more than a level of unprofessionalism towards climate skeptics, yet never bother themselves with quoting the actual emails so their readers can make their own determination. Does the term journalistic integrity mean anything to you?

For starters, no one wants to talk about the computer programming that was also leaked from the CRU. This code is absolute proof that the data was manipulated to distort global temperatures (see Watts Up With That: the Smoking Code). Computers do lie, when people tell them to, and this code was disseminated to other climate research centers, which explains why they all provide nearly identical readings on climate.

Further, Rutton claims that it is irrefutable that the Earth is warming and that there is a broad scientific consensus on this. And yet in one of the hacked emails, Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a lead author of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change, is seen to lament, "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t ... Our observing system is inadequate." In private, the scientists know the Earth stopped warming over ten years ago; in public, they ridiculously claim the last ten years have been the warmest ever. Ever. And if there is this so-called consensus, how is it that the creator of the Weather Channel managed to assemble no less than 30,000 scientists from around the world to sue Al Gore for fraud? Rutton compares global warming skeptics with denial of Darwinism, but in truth this so-called consensus on global warming bares a striking resemblance to the case for war against Iraq based on non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

And finally, Rutton asks, qui bono? Who benefits? Well, the scientists have certainly benefited from tens of millions in funding that would've been unavailable to them were they global warming skeptics. Governments want to facilitate this fraud because they can collect trillions of dollars in new taxes off of it. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp - governments love to tax, and will use just about any justification they can conceive to do so. Carbon taxes and cap and trade schemes to combat "global warming" are the biggest fraud in the history of mankind.