Orson Scott Card is an award-winning science fiction author who made his first huge step into the political arena on the day before Election Day 2006 when he wrote an op-ed - as a life-long Democrat, mind you - declaring (emphasis added):
If control of the House passes into Democratic hands, there are enough withdraw-on-a-timetable Democrats in positions of prominence that it will not only seem to be a victory for our enemies, it will be one.
Four months later, he wrote a piece for the Greensboro, North Carolina, paper he's been writing for since shortly after the attacks on 9/11 - The Rhinoceros Times - that largely slipped under the radar until Meridian magazine republished it this month (h/t Tim Ball).
In his own inimitable style, Card meticulously debunked the infamous "Hockey Stick Hoax" that much of global warming alarmism is based on, and, after doing so, concluded (emphasis added):
What matters right here and now is that it is time for the world's scientists to apostatize from the Church of Global Warming. It is a false religion. It is based on lies, and its leading prophets know that it is because they're the ones faking the data or stretching it to ridiculous lengths to pretend that the real world hasn't already ruled against their claims.
It is time for our school systems to stop accepting the gospel of that false religion and start doing their due diligence. Our children should be taught about the demonstrable solar cycles and the whole human-caused Global Warming theory, along with the Hockey Stick Hoax, should be taught only as another example, after Piltdown Man and pre-Copernican theories of planetary movement, of how science can be corrupted when ideology gets ahead of the data.
It is time for us to laugh at the ideologues who try to pretend that any criticism of Global Warming alarmism is idiotic and unscientific. They are the ones who ignore the data; they are the ones who believe on faith alone, without evidence; and, most important, they are the ones who are trying to stifle the opposition without answering it.
The Global Warming alarmists are the anti-science religion that is trying to forcibly indoctrinate and convert everyone while suppressing dissent. And the news media are their patsies, their stooges, their puppets.
Right now, let's start demanding that whenever the local newspaper or TV stations say anything about Global Warming, they back it up with actual data that takes into account the solar oscillations, the real climate history of the earth, and the facts about what CO2 actually does in the atmosphere.
Obviously, five paragraphs can't do this piece justice. As such, I humbly implore both believers and skeptics to read this entire article. You will not be disappointed.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
WOW !!!
July 24, 2007 - 17:49 ET by LionKingNoel, great find. Mr. Card certainly expressed how I feel about this false religion. Too bad Time or Newsweek won't include this essay.
Political Theater
July 24, 2007 - 17:58 ET by allanfGlobal Warming is political theater, not science. '
The recent National Academy of Sciences report, far from confirming anthorpomorphic Global Warming, indicated that earths temperatures have been rising for 400 years, since the end of a "little ice age". From 1919 to 1940 temperatures rose a little more than the trend.
The earth cooled from about 1940 to 1970. Here is a quote from earth day 1970.
Can we encourage Orson Scott
July 24, 2007 - 17:55 ET by Conservative VoiceCan we encourage Orson Scott Card to run for President?
CV... Not so fast. On
July 24, 2007 - 18:12 ET by Clear thinkerCV...
Not so fast. On this subject he has it pretty much nailed down, but he's not always leaning right. I suggest you go to his site and read some of his past musings.
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Not saying I would vote for
July 24, 2007 - 19:16 ET by Conservative VoiceNot saying I would vote for him, just want a real Democrat on the ticket, because all the current Democrats are absolutely scary if they win.
Outstanding article!
July 24, 2007 - 19:15 ET by habbyguyPlease do yourself a huge favor and read the article linked in the last paragraph above. It's the most concise, well-crafted synopsis of the history, problems, and realities behind the global warming mythology I've seen to date (and I've seen a host of 'em).
Noel Thanks for the find. I
July 24, 2007 - 19:22 ET by danboNoel Thanks for the find. I read the article. Card did one of the best jobs I've seen piecing together the story of Mann's history of climate, vrs Steve McIntyre; and IPCC's AGW fraud.
Steve is also now chipping away at the funny math coming out of NASA and was getting the same treatment he got from Nature and Mann. Though he has made some progress.
http://climateaudit.org/
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge will be shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods. Albert Einstein
So Steve starts digging.
July 24, 2007 - 21:15 ET by dahliatraversSo Steve starts digging. First, he read's Mann's original report. He finds it an exercise in obscurity. From what he published, it's very, very hard to tell just what statistical methods Mann used, or even what data he operated on.
This is wrong — it's not supposed to be that way. Scientists are supposed to leave a clear path so other people can follow them up and replicate their research.
The fact that it's so obscure suggests that Mann does not want anyone checking his work.
-----
This is incredible. Mann's work has not been verified by any other scientists. The hockey stick is fictional!
And on my favorite - the computer models:
Here's the raw truth:
All the computer models are wrong. They have not only failed to predict the future, they can't even predict that past.
-----
This is amazing, Noel, thank you for posting it. Science was completely thrown out the window when the theory of AGW was put forward. Anyone who advocates it should hang their head.
The Hockey Stick
July 24, 2007 - 21:51 ET by bburkI read that the good old USA government paid professional statisitions to look at the study in which the hockey stick was born. The result was that basic statisitical errors were found and the model always produced the hockey stick.
Hockey Stick debunked
July 25, 2007 - 10:01 ET by GalvanicThat's right, bbunk. Although the Stick's creator was reluctant to share his data (Highly suspicious in a field where peer review is essential), a number of scientists and statisticians eventually obtained it, and not only found major errors in the model as you noted, but discovered that the creator of the Hockey Stick omitted the Little Ice Age data, even though it was listed in his data base. When you plug in the Little Ice Age, you don't get much of a hockey stick.
The IPCC --- that quasi-scientific body advising the UNSC on climate change --- initially adopted the Hockey Stick (as did Al Gore), but abandoned it years ago after it was debunked (Gore had not abandoned it).
Not surprisingly, many AGW advocates refuse to accept the Hockey Stick's demise, and still cite it as evidence of AGW.
While this is interesting,
July 24, 2007 - 21:53 ET by balboaWhile this is interesting, it doesn't prove GW or disprove it. It's interesting that a democrat is speaking out against it, sure, but that's just proof that us dems aren't all cookie-cutter stereotypes.
While this is interesting,
July 24, 2007 - 22:02 ET by SMGalbraithWhile this is interesting, it doesn't prove GW or disprove it
No, absolutely not. And I - relying on scientists who I assume have rigorously checked their research (and had peer reviews of their studies) - have to believe that human caused GW is occurring. Or, at least, some of the recent GW was engendered by human activity.
But when we have something like the Holy Grail of GW - the Mann hockey stick - shown to be completely false and, more important, seemingly never peer-reviewed or checked for accuracy, one has to pause.
A long pause at that.
Au Contrar
July 24, 2007 - 22:14 ET by stratmanThe author of the article indeed states we are in a minor global warming period. He goes on to say that the warming is completely due to the effects of the sun and not from anthropogenic greenhouse gases. And the author states there are multiple, verifiable, repeatable data from across the planet that supports his claim of the long term cyclic nature of the sun, as well as short term variances in sun activity, which explains all the temperature changes going back thousands of years.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Noel. If the media was not ...
July 24, 2007 - 22:03 ET by Gary HallNoel. If the media was not completely biased and fixed on it's agenda here, they would investigate. They would call the experts, they would say, "come on. Let's respond to these nay sayers. Lay out the science for the public to inspect and to understand and let's put this to rest." They would ask them to prove that the Mann models and the wanted IPCC position is based in science.
Obviously, the reason the media has decided instead, to cheapen journalism without regard to the public interest and has reverted to the bumper sticker slogan of, "it's settled science," and has not conducted investigative reporting nor has held a constructive public dialog on the subject, is because they fear that indeed - the science is flawed.
Ya think? (;~>
If the media was not
July 24, 2007 - 23:14 ET by dahliatraversIf the media was not completely biased and fixed on it's agenda here, they would investigate.
Oo, oo, I have an idea! Let's start the rumor that Karl Rove is a fervent believer in AGW --- wait, even better, that he wrote the theory of AGW.
The media dislike him so much, they will drop everything and work feverishly to disprove AGW. One week max - that's all it will take them to "expose" AGW for the fraud that it is, once they learn the "truth" about who is behind it ...
Good gravy, I'm surrounded
July 24, 2007 - 23:18 ET by tracheostomyGood gravy, I'm surrounded by geniuses today! Somebody make this happen!
Dahlia, you're HIRED!
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
All you need to know about
July 24, 2007 - 22:42 ET by PopularTechAll you need to know about the Hockey Stick is summed up in this report: What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About? (PDF)
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Mr. Card earned my respect
July 24, 2007 - 23:51 ET by Jinx McHueMr. Card earned my respect and admiration a long time ago. Glad to see he's still talking sense.
Wikipedia has some great information about him:
http://en.wikipedia....
Absolute.
July 25, 2007 - 00:08 ET by fosstenAbsolute. Brilliance.
Forget 911, I dial 9MM.
DIAL 9MM
July 25, 2007 - 12:43 ET by ts88FOSS, I did what you said and dialed 9mm and got in trouble,
because I shot my mouth off. sorry I just had to. Pat
Card talks about the false
July 25, 2007 - 00:49 ET by stratmanCard talks about the false religion of AGW and the non-science (AKA nonsense) basis of AGW.
Earlier today I posted my own similar (overlapping) conclusions on a different thread concerning the psychology of AGW cultists which compliments Card's scientific analysis of fraudulent data.
I don't know if it's kosher to repost here so I'll just link to the post entitled Neofanatacism: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2007/07/24/open-thread#comment-393467 and a reply ("Spooky Indeed") 4 posts down from the first.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
The Nation's High temp
July 25, 2007 - 05:05 ET by Cool ArrowI remember back in the '60's the Nation's high temp was always Presidio, Tx. We knew it wasn't so, but who the heck cared except Presidio, which had no other claim to fame.
Things have changed not due to GW, but because the reporting is more accurate.
When the "Heart of Texas" marker was moved a few years ago, it had nothing to do with volcanic activity and techtonic plates, but everything to do with the accuracy of mapping.
The GW frenzoids would have us ignore the real science for the sake of the Green Church just as Galileo was silenced for the sake of another Church.
So now we're looking to
July 25, 2007 - 10:46 ET by LeonSo now we're looking to science fiction writers for information.
Great.
Leon
July 25, 2007 - 11:12 ET by Noel SheppardLeon,
You mean as opposed to former vice presidents, rock stars, movie stars, and wives of television producers?
Yeah, I'll take the word of a science fiction writer who has actually done some research, and cited scientific reports in his article over folks like Gore, Crow, DiCaprio, and David who are basing their entire premise on faulty data that has been exposed as being a total fraud.
Does it bother you at all that their entire argument is based on this "Hockey Stick" which has been thoroughly debunked as utter nonsense and junk science? Or, do you give the faulty nature of Mann's premise a pass because it supports your dogma?
Face it, Leon, it has been proven that Mann substituted numbers and falsified data to make one plus one equal three. Why do you support such specious activity? ns
oh Leon, Noel and MikeB
July 25, 2007 - 14:02 ET by vrwc13<retracted>
The reason that Christianity is the best friend of government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart.
Thomas Jefferson
Noel, I've never looked
July 25, 2007 - 12:18 ET by LeonNoel,
I've never looked to Al Gore, rock stars, movie stars, or wives of television producers to make my arguments.
In fact, you'll find that I've spoken out vehemently (on this site nonetheless) against taking advice from any of those wack jobs. I've never advocated taking anyone seriously that isn't a certified/educated expert/specialist. Especially not a celebrity.
So while you look to science fiction writers for your facts/defenses, I'll continue to look towards scientists and experts.
PS And it doesn't bother me what Al Gore/Rock Stars base their arguments on, because I don't listen to them. I'm not a moron. I don't buy the Enquirer. I don't care what Lindsay Lohan did last night. Furthermore, I've never supported the hockey stick theory or Mann, but feel free to asssume my beliefs on this matter.
Leon
July 25, 2007 - 12:45 ET by Noel SheppardLeon,
First, regardless of how you're getting piled on today, you needn't get defensive with me. Our discussions here have normally transcended that. Fair enough?
As for me looking towards science fiction writers for views on this subject, isn't it you making a wild assumption? You might want to check all of the posts I've done on AGW in the past two years, and see how many times I've addressed the work of a novelist prior to this point.
That said, as someone just pointed out to you, many sci fi writers are indeed scientists. Furthermore, regardless of Card's bona fides, this is indeed a well-written, well-researched, and well-sourced piece. As all he's done here is eloquently advance the results of published studies -- and not feature research or positions created by him -- his bio is somewhat irrelevant.
In fact, that he has done homework and presented actual scientific support for his views instead of the liberal meme "The debate is over" and "Virtually all scientists agree" makes his statements signficantly more valuable than virtually any from the left.
As for Mann's Hockey Stick, if you don't buy his nonsense, how do you believe in any of this? Please advise. ns
You are Correct Noel and I
July 25, 2007 - 13:47 ET by LeonYou are Correct Noel and I apologize for being defensive. It was unwarranted especially considering our past, civil (and often informative for me) interactions.
This type of posting just angers me, because it seems to me that the anti-GW crowd are very quick to accept any works that seemingly support their position that global warming isn't real.
You say Card has legitimacy b/c his piece is well-written, well-researched (other people's research of course) and well-sourced.
You say he's done his homework and presented actual scientific support for his views. But isn't that what the scientists that support global warming have done, yet you dismiss them easily because they disagree with you.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, it's annoying to watch you all ignore 928 peer-reviewed, empirical studies (and the major volumes of other pro-GW material) while trying to tell me some science fiction writer that has access to Lexis-Nexis has got it all sussed out.
It just seems so absurd to put this type of work up on a pedastal while completely ignoring the wealth of actual scientific information that exists about global warming.
Leon
July 25, 2007 - 14:10 ET by Noel SheppardLeon,
Apology graciously accepted. :-)
Actually, skeptics are by no means ignoring what scientists on the believing side of the aisle are reporting. Instead, we're debunking it. Regularly. Almost 24/7.
You must understand that much of the IPCC position stems from Mann's Hockey Stick. Once you admit its fallacy, the rest of the positions from the scientists associated with the IPCC crumble.
As such, it's not our side that is ignoring science. Instead, it is the believers' side which says "The science is settled" and "The debate is over" who aggressively choose to not pay any attention to the mass of studies controverting their view.
Remember, it is the believers' position that is currently widely accepted by the media and Democrat politicians who now control Congress. It is the job of the skeptics to present factual information which debunks this view.
Unfortunately, all the believers have to do is say "The debate is over" without being required to refute skeptical studies. How frackin' convenient.
Why accept this, Leon? Honestly, as you admit that Mann was wrong, and can see how important his faulty assertion is to the IPCC and the entire AGW argument, doesn't this make an intelligent person such as yourself question the rest of the theory and its veracity? If not, why not? ns
Leon. Over the years I've
July 25, 2007 - 14:56 ET by danboLeon. Over the years I've spent sometime following this fight. I read the letters between McIntyre and I believe it was Nature. They were open letters.
This was a well written account of what happened.
Did you jump to quick because this guy wrote sci-fi?
Are you as guilty to just brush off sceptics.
As far as the 928 peer reviewed empirical papers. I also read Oreskes. And have done my own analysis of her work. And am also aware of other research that refutes her. She did not have 928 it was closer to 13 or 19.
As Oreskes research appeared as an essay rather than "research" there is some question as to whether it was peer reviewed or not.
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge will be shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods. Albert Einstein
Leon, your ignorance or
July 25, 2007 - 12:02 ET by MikeBLeon, your ignorance or your bias is showing. Isaac Asimov had a PhD in Chemistry from Columbia. Arthur C. Clarke "obtained first class (PhD) honors in Physics and Mathematics at King's College in London in 1948". L. Sprague De Camp had a Master's Degree in Aeronautical Engineering. These are only three examples of science fiction writers who were scientists. In fact, their backgrounds as scientists make their fiction writings more believable and enjoyable. Their backgrounds as science fiction authors did not make their technical writings any less factual or scientific.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Right, So how does this
July 25, 2007 - 12:19 ET by LeonRight,
So how does this justify supporting Card? Did he also have a PHD in Physics and Mathematics?
I don't see how your examples are relevant at all.
If Card does have these degrees, than certainly I stand corrected, however, my feeling is that if he was so qualified, Noel would have mentioned it in his posting. YOu know, to add legitimacy.
Let's see, you started out
July 25, 2007 - 16:08 ET by MikeBLet's see, you started out with a sarcastic "so now we're looking to science fiction writers for information. Great." You painted all science fiction writers with the same brush, apparently implying that science fiction writers were devoid of any ability to write science fact. It is true that Card's Master's degree is in English, not Climatology, but does that mean that the information he researched and collated is any less (or more) factual? Do you remember the May 18, 2007 thread by Kristen Byrnes? She was 15 years old at the time, with no advanced degree whatever, yet her article was well researched, well thought out, and well written.
Leon, you comment here at NewsBusters. Do you have an advanced degree in Journalism, Economics, Sociology,or Political Science? If not, should we completely disregard anything you say? You were flat out wrong in your implication that science fiction writers are devoid of ability to reason or comment upon scientific matters.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
If you want to see a scare
July 25, 2007 - 12:16 ET by Some GuyIf you want to see a scare possible future ... read Cards new book "Empire". I think he has it pegged how scary this would could get.
Here's a scientist
July 25, 2007 - 15:58 ET by GalvanicOK, Leon. How about Dr. Linzen, the head of climatology at MIT? Would you accept his assessment of the AGW analysis?
The problem with the AGW argument is that it seems to be an ensemble of anecdotes, and when each anecdote is debunked, the AGW gurus insist that it means nothing to the overall thesis. The IPCC is ratcheting down its estimates with each report to the UNSC; their latest estimate on sea level rise by 2100 is 9"-21", and not the alarmist 20' that Gore declares.
The "Inconvenient Truth" message is readily bought by laymen too lazy to seek counter-arguments, and unfortunately, that includes numerous politicians and anyone who think they can make a quick buck on it (e.g. British Petroleum). The Democrats, who constantly chide Bush for "scaring" the public about terrorist threats, doesn't mind scaring the public with half-bake theories and flawed models.
How come
July 25, 2007 - 16:09 ET by BradzillaHow come no one has mentioned Michael Crichton? He is a sci-fi author who has come out pretty boldly against the GW hysteria, and is really quite erudite. He has written some pretty good essays on the matter.
Card not a real Democrat
August 1, 2007 - 22:47 ET by brewski01Mr. Card is not a real Democrat. He is a vocal supporter of Bush, the war on terror, the Iraq War and the Patriot Act. Does this sound like a Democrat? Mr. Card, the award-winning science fiction writer is no more qualified to write about global warming than you are.
It's time to stop your lame search for anyone who denies global warming and get a real life Mr. Sheppard. Before long it is going to be more difficlult to find a global warming denier than it is to find a supporter of Alberto Gonzales.