What can we learn from Clinton vs Microsoft?

Nearing it's end, the Clinton administration needed to repay unending financial support from tech companies and repay their support during his impeachment. So justice lawyers and Microsoft competitors entered into a widespread conspiracy to find Microsoft an abusive monopoly. They did this by justice meeting secretly with individual officers of Microsoft's competitors. These meeting dealt with developing a strategy to prompt comments from Microsoft's staff that could be used in court proceedings as evidence.

Once enough "evidence" was collected by competitors, justice filed a case against Microsoft. They select a judge known for his hostility to Microsoft. A man who was known to have laughed at Microsoft being characterized as the "Dark Force." Judge Penfield Jackson performed his part of the conspiracy by abusing the bench to find Microsoft guilty of abuse of monopoly power.

The result is where we can gain some insight into the global warming movement. Once labeled an abusive monopolist, any marketing action or improvement or change in Microsoft's Windows platform can be challenged as abusive.

Global warming didn't come into existence until a group of political extremists joined forces in the late 1980s. This was a time when previous "end of the world" theories had been discarded. It was "proven' until then that an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere would cause an ice age. So the new, new coalition of political extremists decided to tack 180 degrees to say that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere will cause world incineration. This was a breathtaking change of "science."

As with justice and Microsoft's competitors, political extremists met to define global warming and how to make it accepted science. This is necessary so that the platform of global warming like Microsoft's guilt as a abusive monopoly are accepted by the courts of law, science, politics, and public opinion. Once that was achieved, all climate events and weather changes can be connected to global warming without revisiting if it indeed exists.

Today the N Y Times leads with: "Frog Killer Is Linked to Global Warming." J. Alan Pounds says that frogs are dying due to a fungus that is spreading as a result of global warming. He fails to account for: "Temperatures rise and drop cyclically from region to region. So a recent minor temperature increase in the mid-tropics might indicate this or that: "Paradoxically, the fungus thrives best in cooler conditions, challenging the theory that global warming is at fault. But Dr. Pounds and his team, in studying trends in temperature and disease around the American tropics, found patterns that they say explain the situation. "

Not to worry, Pounds and his supporting scientists reach back to the pre-global warming days to tell us that: Because warming increases evaporation, it can create clouds that tend to make days cooler by blocking sunlight, and make nights warmer by trapping heat. In an interview, Dr. Pounds said those conditions could have created favorable conditions for the spread of the chytrid fungus. " Did Pounds study day and night temperatures and their correlating changes to make this "leap of faith?" No! He just went back to the ice age argument that he and others helped to discredit.

All this twisting and churning of so called science is only possible because of the conspiracy to make the irrefutable case that global warming is an unchallengable truth. What's breathtaking in this article for me is that some scientists are actually standing up and pushing back. Cynthia Carey of the University of Colorado risks her career by saying: "that while both climate and amphibian die-offs were serious problems, this particular paper failed to offer anything beyond circumstantial evidence." I'll keep an eye on her career.