End To The Global Warming Fraud?
It Should Be--But I Wouldn't Bet On It
Why? What's Happened?
The past week has seen frenzied activity across the Internet over the hacking and public posting of 62 zipped Megabytes'
worth of files and e-mails that seemingly betray an organized apparatus of data manipulation, falsification, and deception to
advance a predetermined agenda by members of the scientific establishment primarily responsible for the claims of imminent
global disaster due to man-made global warming. For those who may have missed it or have just returned from a vacation on
Mars, some overviews of what commentators are describing in such terms as "the greatest scientific scandal ever"
Marc Sheppard, The Evidence of
Climate Fraud at American Thinker
Criminal? Oh yes, indeed. As this mock-science serves as justification for trillions of dollars in imposed and
proposed new taxes, liens, fees, and rate hikes -- not to mention the absurd wealth-redistribution premise of international
climate debt "reparations" -- such manipulation of evidence should be treated as exactly what it is: larceny on the grandest
scale in history.
Also has a link to a folder containing the original material.
James Delingpole, Climategate: The Final Nail in the Coffin of Anthropogenic Global Warming at UK Telegraph Online
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
Highlights scientists entertaining private doubts about the reality of global warming, manipulations to eliminate the
"Medieval Warm Period" from the published record (the period from about 900 to 1200AD when global mean temperatures were considerably warmer than they
are now), and discussing stratetgies to exclude dissenting scientists from publication.
Also a collection of links to opinions by contributors from a variety of backgrounds.
Tim Ball, The Death Blow to Climate Science at
Canada Free Press
I was always suspicious about why peer review was such a big deal. Now all my suspicions are confirmed. The
emails reveal how they controlled the process, including manipulating some of the major journals like Science and Nature. . .
. Of course the IPCC Reports and especially the SPM Reports are the basis for Kyoto and the Copenhagen Accord, but now we
know they are based on completely falsified and manipulated data and science. It is no longer a suspicion. Surely this is the
death knell for the CRU, the IPCC, Kyoto and Copenhagen and the Carbon Credits shell game.
Dennis T. Avery, Hadley Hack-In Reveals
Hidden Truths at Enter Stage Right (The Climate Research Unit in Eastern England, together with its sister unit,
the Hadley Centre in Exeter, Devon, is one of the primary information sources used by the UN's International Panel on Climate
Quotes one climate alarmist lamenting:
[W]here the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder [on October 12, 2009] where we have
broken records the past two days for the coldest day on record. We have 4 inches of snow. The high the past two days was
below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a
record low, well below the previous record.
And see the Washington Times for a general assessment
The practices revealed by the e-mails include:
- Manipulation of evidence to achieve a desired end, for example, manufacturing of the notorious "Hockey Stick" curve of
global temperatures soaring in the latter part of the 20th century, when the unmassaged data exhibit no such trend
- Concealing private doubts about whether the world is really heating up
- Refusing outsiders access to the original data, including the destruction of evidence following Freedom of Information
requests--almost certainly illegal
- Organized boycotts of scientific journals that publish dissenting material
- Developing strategies to exclude dissenting scientists from the peer review process, ensuring that only views favoring
the controlling in-group will be approved for publication.
A point by point summary of the content is posted at
Marc Sheppard's CRU's Source Code:
Climategate Uncovered gives examples of procedures employed for such ends as fudging down record high 1934 temperatures
in order to misrepresent 1998 as the warmest year of the century, and hiding the temperature decline from 1960 to the mid 70s
despite rising levels of carbon dioxide, which contradicts the promulgated dogma. He concludes: "But the now-irrefutable
evidence that alarmists have indeed been cooking the data for at least a decade may be the most important strike in human
We're currently hearing triumphant proclamations from skeptics that the fraud is exposed before the world and the scam will
now collapse. Much as I'd like that to be true, we all have times in life when we'd like to be proved wrong, and I'm afraid I
wouldn't bet on it. The coalition of:
represents a fearsome lineup of power that has too much at stake to back down now. While the quasi-religious crusade
of "saving the planet" was an effective vehicle for motivating large numbers of people to accept the necessity for penance
and self-sacrifice, such considerations as integrity and and objective concern for truth were never significant factors in
constructing the credo, and there's no reason why they should matter much now. So I'd expect to see first a general playing down of the issue by the mass media,
followed by some lavishly backed whitewashing and coordinated spin to the effect that it has all been overblown, and the
threats are as real as ever, as the damage control machinery swings into action. As the farce of the recent mandated re-vote
on the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland showed, when the outcome is sufficiently important, the powers that decide will proceed with
their agenda regardless, discarding the pretense of democratic choice if need be, and using all means to manipulate the electorate into
returning the required decision. So will "Climategate" provoke the same level of media frenzy and blood-lust as
was seen with Watergate? I doubt it.
- political forces that have found a bonanza pretext for bailing themselves out of the worldwide financial mess that their
ineptitude has created
- corporate interests looking to make billions out of government promoted and subsidized "green" idiocy
- an allegedly scientific research community overwhelmingly dependent on government funding effectively dispensed
conditionally upon delivering the desired answers . . .
And, Inevitably . . .
I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global
warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and
-- Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe, February 9, 2007
It has become commonplace as the controversy grew more acrimonious for doomsday extremists and compliant journalists
reaffirming their politically correct credentials to compare skeptics with "Holocaust Deniers." Although it is intended as
the ultimate in offense, I think the comparison is an apt one (although "Historical Revisionists" would be a more accurate
term for the latter, who despite the deliberate vagueness and pejorative of the contrived term, are specific as to the
aspects of the officially dispensed version of recent history that they question, and their reasons for doing so). But apt
not for the reasons that the accusers imagine. In both cases we have a field of inquiry--science and history--in which
beliefs are supposed, ideally, to be shaped purely on the basis of evidence, without bias or preconceptions, and with respect
given to open debate of the facts, freedom of expression, and unimpeded access to all available information. In both fields the tradition of scholarship requires any belief to be open to revision in the light of new evidence. And in both
cases we have a misrepresented and persecuted minority challenging an officially prescribed story protected and censored by
powerful forces, risking ridicule, vilification, destruction of their careers, and in the case of the historians,
criminalization and imprisonment in some countries, for refusing to be silenced and standing by what they believe to be true.
If the openness that our culture takes such pride in claiming to guarantee is denied, the question can only be asked: What
are these people saying that the public mustn't be allowed to hear?
With its complete control over the written word and education, the moral underpinnings that the state was committed to
preserve, and the belief system dispensed to the populace, it must have seemed that nothing could ever break the
totalitarianism exercised by the European Church of the Middle Ages. And yet, with the advent of the printing press, enabling
anyone with recalcitrant ideas to spread his thoughts easily and widely, the monopoly was broken surprisingly quickly. Today,
it could be that the Internet represents the beginnings of a comparable emancipation from thought control through
manufactured fears, and the induced conformity brought about by concentration of the mass communications media in a few hands
pursuing common goals. Interesting times indeed.