Climategate

[My comments]
[This article is from Dec 2009, just after Climategate came out. This guy gets how bad it would have been had the globalist not been exposed as the frauds that they are.]
[Something that I still don't get is the lack of outrage from the general public,

"Yeah you lied and were going to screw me, my children, my grandchildren, basically everyone on the planet from now on, oh well, no hard feelings." "BTW there is a 50% chance I will believe your next big lie."]


09:06 AM CST on Saturday, December 19, 2009

Santa makes his rounds later this week, but I've already received one of the best gifts ever: the complete unmasking of one of the most insidious movements of recent history – the radical effort to force reckless and needless constraints onto the human race in an attempt to change the planet's climate.

If I had been told last year that a scandal called "Climategate" would reveal in 2009 the depths of treachery that would infect the so-called science behind assertions of man-made global warming, I would have been thrilled. But I would have asked for just a little extra something.

I would have asked for this monumental and wholly deserved embarrassment to explode just before the opening gavel of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, an orgy of clergy and parishioners in the tawdry church of anthropogenic climate change.

The curtain finally fell on this 12-day global dog-and-pony show Friday, amid shattered dreams of launching a new initiative to dash the world's economies against the rocks of a contrived menace.

My gratitude knows no bounds. Not just for political reasons; this was a genuinely dangerous cult whose success would have exacted a profound toll on the quality of life of the human race.

The Climategate e-mail release is a watershed moment in the history of hoaxes. But while it reveals just the tip of the fraudulent climate change iceberg, it is also at long last a victory for those who wish to be good stewards of the planet's environment without crippling human productivity.

And for having endured the braying lectures of those who have preached this dishonest scripture for years, from high political priests like Al Gore to the annoying deacons filling the Hollywood wing of environmental delusion, I am going to enjoy this for a while.

This is not ordinarily how I roll on the fairly rare recent occasions when my political side prevails. Dangerous inattention to national security raises my hackles, but on virtually everything else – health care, taxes, even abortion – I recognize there are differences and debates that must play themselves out among those with varying views. I'm always ready to engage with vigor tempered by openness to opposing positions.

It is time for the global environment to be addressed in that fashion. While there is no reason to conclude that man can change the Earth's temperature in any significant way, our existence will always have some effect on the environment. A frank conversation must take place over how to balance human needs for jobs and energy against the effects we have on our air, water and land.

But for too long that discourse has been hijacked by those who would relegate us to unproven alternative energy sources while gutting the methods that have made American productivity unmatched in human history.

The radical left's hostility toward capitalism, leading to a poisonous bias in science funding toward those who sing from the global warming hymnal, led to decades of scientists saying man was heating the planet and that we could cool it by suffocating our economies with draconian limitations.

And for a while there, they were widely believed. Drunk on this falsely earned power, they crowed that the debate was settled and that their claims of man changing the Earth's temperature were proven. The planet's history of rising and falling temperature cycles dating to before factories and SUVs made no difference to these people. Even the global cooling scare of the 1970s – in many ways a more environmentally offensive decade than the current one – was conveniently forgotten.

But now their radical politicization of science has been outed and their pretense of caring about the planet stripped away. My favorite metaphor for these discredited neo-Marxist souls is watermelons – green on the outside, red on the inside.

I don't know if sanctimonious blowhards like Al Gore will ever be properly chastened by the uncovering of the scam they have perpetrated. But for those wishing to enjoy a playing field made honest, it is time for a constructive debate about how to maintain the global economy in a responsible way that honors the planet and the needs of the people who live on it.

That means embracing green technologies that actually work – which will not require a dime of taxpayer subsidy. We all want a clean and healthy world. From hybrid cars to low-emissions home products to solar panels and wind farms, plenty of planet-friendly technologies have won favor in the marketplace, and we are better for them.

And we are surely better off for the dawn of this new day allowing us to dispense with the absurd narcissism that man can change the planet's temperature, or that we know better than God what its ideal temperature should be.

This frees us for the important human business of taking care of the Earth in a way that meets the needs of both planet and man.

Mark Davis is heard weekdays from 8:30 to 11 a.m. on WBAP-AM, News/Talk 820. His e-mail address is mdavis@wbap.com.

Climategate: Global Warming Fraud

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: November 20th, 2009

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

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. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view is now also the majority view.

Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover.