On Tuesday, Britain's Daily Mail published a perfect example of this maxim with a delicious piece about "hippy-crites": those pompous, holier-than-thou movie stars that go around the world advocating environmental causes and reducing one's carbon footprint while they themselves emit more carbon dioxide in a year than the average person will his entire life.

Here are a few of my favorites (h/t NBer Blonde, picture right courtesy Daily Telegraph, others courtesy Daily Mail):

Hillary Clinton is going to end global warming. At least her campaign website says so. It lists this aim:

"Reduce Global Warming - Hillary has championed the most aggressive approach to reducing global warming out there. She supports an 80% pollution reduction by the year 2050, an approach that has been called the gold standard of global warming reduction."

Oh, and she also wants to suspend the federal gas tax so that people can keep driving their 10-mile-per-gallon SUVs on their summer vacations.

So is she a tree-hugger or an SUV-hugger?

Both, it seems. Only she's not fooling anyone.

Since the devastating 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, scientists have been briskly testing the notion that global warming's fingerprints have already appeared on tropical-cyclone activity worldwide.

Now, a new analysis from the scientist who helped trigger that flurry of studies suggests that the answer to questions about global warming's impact on current tropical-cyclone trends may instead be: No, not yet.

The results come from a team led by Kerry Emanuel, an atmospheric scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass. He focuses on tropical cyclones, and his latest work seems to undercut his own conclusions in a 2005 study on climate change and tropical cyclones.

Let's call it Apocalypse Postponed. At least temporarily.

German climate scientists have just published a study in the respected science journal Nature suggesting global warming has stopped and will not resume until at least 2015.

In other words (my words, not theirs) contrary to the received wisdom of Al Gore's simplistic and propagandistic "An Inconvenient Truth," global temperatures aren't moving in lockstep with rising greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the science isn't settled and we don't know everything we need to know.

Based on new, computer-generated climate models that factor in natural ocean currents, the researchers conclude: "Our results suggest that global surface temperatures may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic (man-made) warming."

I'm not sure which ad put out by Al Gore's new global warming ad campaign is worse -- the one featuring House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with former GOP Speaker Newt Gingrich on a love seat, or the spots with the Revs. Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson noting their agreement on the issue.

I don't think Pelosi does herself any favors posing with that sultan of smarm, Gingrich -- even for an issue so dear to the left. Gingrich's role confirms the suspicion of many Republicans that the Newter will say any trendy thing to get his face in the limelight.

Also, my first thought when I see Robertson and Sharpton on the same side is this: that any cause that can put them on the same side, well, it can't be good. And it's sure to involve cameras and professional lighting.

A notable story of recent months should have been the evidence pouring in from all sides to cast doubts on the idea that the world is inexorably heating up. The proponents of man-made global warming have become so rattled by how the forecasts of their computer models are being contradicted by the data that some are rushing to modify the thesis.

So a German study, published by Nature last week, claimed that, while the world is definitely warming, it may cool down until 2015 "while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions".

A little vignette of the media's one-sided view was given by recent events on Snowdon, the highest mountain in southern Britain. Each year between 2003 and 2007, the retreat of its winter snow cover inspired reports citing this as evidence of global warming.

For at least the next decade, the most august scientific authorities are now saying, global average temperatures will not increase. My first instinct, had I any free money to blow, is to bet that they will rise: less from a betting impulse than from greed, for I've noticed that a lot of money has been made betting against the consensus of the authorities in my lifetime, and a lot lost on assuming it was sound.

I might hesitate, however, in this instance, for from the little I know about world climate -- enough to dismiss global warming alarmists, but not enough to make my own confident predictions -- a cooling trend is more likely than a warming one, in the near future, for two big reasons. First, Earth weather seems to track space weather, and the solar magnetic activity cycle seems to be entering relaxation mode.

It seems that Newsweek's "science" editrix, Sharon Begley, wants you to make the leap that the Gangotri glacier, one of the largest in the Himalayas, has been shrinking for the last 25 years at three times the historical norm because of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

In the May 5, 2008, issue of Newsweek, in the article "Heat your vegetables," she begins her halfwitted rant with, "Whenever global warming began looking too bleak..."  She then takes a swipe at the coal industry, which no doubt generates the electricity to her power-sucking laptop, before rapping their knuckles for not noticing that a glacier is melting:

One of the Himalayas' largest, [Gangotri glacier] has been shrinking since the late 18th century. But over the last 25 years it has shrunk about half a mile, a rate three times the historical norm... "Without the ice melt, the Ganges and the Yellow rivers could dry up in the dry season, shrinking harvests," says Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute. "If the Ganges flows only part of the year, double cropping [in which farmers plant rice and wheat in back-to-back growing seasons, and which underlies India's green revolution] breaks down."

Thank you for your dedication to protecting our environment. Clean air and clean water are essential to preserving life on planet Earth. Protecting all species and natural lands and forests are admirable priorities. Recycling and a green lifestyle are wonderful. Making the environment the most important thing in your life is a good thing, not a problem. I support you.

But we do have a problem. You have vigorously embraced the Global Warming predictions of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and are using the warning of uncontrollable warming and a resulting environmental calamity to campaign for elimination of fossil fuels. Your environmentally conscious friends in politics and in the media have united with you to create a barrage of news reports, documentaries, TV feature reports, movies, books, concerts and protest events to build support for your goals. The war against fossil fuels has become a massive scare campaign that is giving children nightmares.

In late April, AccuWeather.com, led by Joe Bastardi, its chief meteorologist, issued a news release that was, to be kind, pure mush. The early warning forecast for 2008's June to November hurricane season said that conditions like La Nina and a "continued warm water cycle in the Atlantic Basin" held forth the "chance for U.S. landfalling storms."

The operative word here is "chance" when predicting hurricanes because it is largely a question of gaming odds on how many. What no self-respecting meteorologist, whether in private forecasting or working for the U.S. government's weather service, wants you to know is that their highly sophisticated computer weather models quite simply cannot factor in a whole range of factors, not the least of which is clouds. Yes, clouds.