Just two years ago the global warming consensus was every scientist and scientist wanna-be in the entire universe.

Then the count was revised to thousands.

Now we find out it was only a few dozen.

The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,”

I knew moonbats had a severe problem with numbers and can't count higher than 10 (assuming they haven't lost any fingers), but I didn't realize just how bad it was. Of course, I should have figgered it out after 9/12/2009 when it took "several hundred" tea partiers 4 hours to march 10 blocks on a six lane street.

Global Warming Fraud?

On April 23, the Virginia attorney general’s office issued a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) to the University of Virginia (UVA) in connection with climate research performed there by global-warming advocate Dr. Michael Mann from 1999 to 2005.

Mann, now at Penn State, was a co-author of the infamous “hockey stick” graph that greatly exaggerated a warming trend in recent decades (a trend that came to an end more than a decade ago, by the way).

Manmade global warming science doesn’t withstand scrutiny

A cross examination of global warming science conducted by the University of Pennsylvania’s Institute for Law and Economics has concluded that virtually every claim advanced by global warming proponents fail to stand up to scrutiny.

He found that the climate establishment does not follow the scientific method. Instead, it “seems overall to comprise an effort to marshal evidence in favor of a predetermined policy preference.”

The 79-page document, which effectively eviscerates the case for man-made global warming, can be found here:
Global Warming Advocacy Science: A Cross Examination

Pay attention to sunspot forecasts

IPCC Obsession With Temperature Distorts Climate Change Science

Several factors prove the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and all those pushing global warming or climate change have a political agenda. They include those items ignored, glossed over, or deliberately misrepresented: projections are consistently wrong: the science has not advanced

Here’s a bizarre 2008 statement from NASA. “Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.”

How does this fit with the certainty of the IPCC claims they were 90% certain CO2 was the cause? Estimates may be better than ever but they are still grossly inadequate. NASA only used the information to support the false feedback hypothesis.

As eminent physicist Freeman Dyson says, “Models do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields, farms and forests.” These are just a few of the problems illustrated by the attempt to forecast precipitation for Africa. It is little better for the rest of the world yet that does not stop the IPCC and climate alarmists from predicting impending doom.

NASA in Shock New Controversy: Two Global Warming Reasons Why

NASA covered up for forty years proof that the greenhouse gas theory was bogus. But even worse, did the U.S. space agency fudge its numbers on Earth’s energy budget to cover up the facts?
...
compounding such disarray, NASA, now apparently acting more like a politicized mouthpiece for a socialist one world government, cannot even provide consistent numbers on Earth’s actual energy budget.

... the world now has scientific evidence to show the greenhouse gas theory (GHG) was junk all along.

As the truth now spreads, an increasing number of scientists refute the greenhouse gas theory, many have been prompted by the shocking revelations since the Climategate scandal. The public have also grown more aware of how a clique of government climatologists were deliberately ‘hiding the decline’ in the reliability of their proxy temperature data all along.

But NASA’s lunar temperature readings prove that behind that smoke was real fire. Some experts now boldly go so far as to say the entire global warming theory contravenes the established laws of physics.

Solar scientists are finally overcoming their fears and going public about the Sun-climate connection

It’s the Sun, stupid

Four years ago, when I first started profiling scientists who were global warming skeptics, I soon learned two things: Solar scientists were overwhelmingly skeptical that humans caused climate change and, overwhelmingly, they were reluctant to go public with their views. Often, they refused to be quoted at all, saying they feared for their funding, or they feared other recriminations from climate scientists in the doomsayer camp. When the skeptics agreed to be quoted at all, they often hedged their statements, to give themselves wiggle room if accused of being a global warming denier. Scant few were outspoken about their skepticism.

No longer.

Climate Change Agenda Exploits Incorrect Assumptions

Prominent Princeton Scientist Dr. Happer Testifies to Congress: 'Warming and increased CO2 will be good for mankind'

Orwellian: I keep hearing about the “pollutant CO2,” or about “poisoning the atmosphere” with CO2, or about minimizing our “carbon footprint.” This brings to mind a comment by George Orwell: “But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving “pollutant” and “poison” of their original meaning. Our exhaled breath contains about 4% CO2. That is 40,000 parts per million, or about 100 times the current atmospheric concentration. CO2 is absolutely essential for life on earth. Commercial greenhouse operators often use CO2 as a fertilizer to improve the health and growth rate of their plants. Plants, and our own primate ancestors evolved when the levels of atmospheric CO2 were at least 1000 ppm, a level that we will probably not reach by burning fossil fuels, and far above our current level of about 380 ppm. We try to keep CO2 levels in our US Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels. [...]

Did a Secret Climate Deal Launch the Hockey Stick Fakery?

If you take one soft-handed, educated-beyond-his-intelligence old hippy professor with a hair-brain imagination-sourced theory with no data to prove it ...

Despite his legacy, outside of climate science few people will have heard of Saltzman. [Because he never did anything that contributed to the betterment of life for mankind] It was only right at the end of his 40-year career that this esteemed analyst produced his greatest achievement: a unified theory of climate that drew worldwide plaudits.

Take another soft-handed, fringe-educated, boar-hog-tit of a professor-that-knows-no-labor wannabe, who has nothing better to do ...

It’s in 1996 that this story gets very curious. At that time Mann needed help to “defend” his Ph.D work in a documented but unexplained controversy at Yale. Inexplicably, this ‘controversy’ was peremptorily swept aside and between 1996-98 Mann was named as the Alexander Hollaender Distinguished Postdoctoral Research Fellow (DOE).

All was now well and Yale gave Mann his Ph.D in 1998. One eminent source in my enquiries confirmed Mann’s Ph.D. was, in fact “rushed through.”
So what miracle had turned this problematic researcher’s life around? If miracles ever happened then for Mann they came in the form of Barry Saltzman. You see, this struggling student’s career was transformed the moment Saltzman became his Ph.D advisor.

Toss em together and whaddaya get? A Hockey Stick.

Add a soft-handed, parasitic ex vice president to the mix and you get a Pocket-Picking Hockey Stick called Man Made Climate Change.

The articles linked below were published in November 2007, long before Ron Paul voters helped escort Obama to the whitehouse. Using the excuse of not voting for the lesser of two evils (Obama vs McCain) they wasted their vote on Ron Paul.

» The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters

Paul supporters complain endlessly that the "mainstream media" is censoring or ignoring their candidate. They should be careful what they ask for. If Paul wants to be taken seriously, he must stop cowering behind the internet and face these questions. Until then it is only reasonable to presume that Paul is happy to wallow in well-financed obscurity accepting the support of some of the worst enemies of freedom and liberty within American society.

» The Odd Alliance Supporting Ron Paul

The Communists crow, "Ron Paul of Texas is driving some of the other Republicans crazy...." They make some mild criticism of Paul's position on the gold standard, but don't say even a single word about Ron Paul's KKK supporters or racist statements tied to Paul. These are the same Communists who regularly call George Bush a fascist.

The CPUSA shacking up with Ron Paul is not new

One Ron Paul meetup discussion thread reads: "Watch what you write cause American Thinker is taking your excerpts." Underlining the fact that the Paulistinians' banning each other are engaged in a cover-up, not a clean-up.

The Paultroons can spot a Zionist gang wiring explosives in the World Trade Center from 1000 miles away, but they didn't notice the ‘conspiracy' behind postings like, "Must Dr. Paul capitulate to our Jewish masters' demands?” - and hundreds of other anti-Semitic comments spread all over the internet by Paul supporters.

Refusal to condemn is endorsement. Unspoken endorsement.

Ignoring Ron Paul's unspoken endorsement of anti-semites, white supremists and truthers places his supporters squarely in the company of those groups.