ClimateGate: Update, December 2nd 2009


I do have to say that Eugene Robinson at Washington Post is consistent – consistently ignoring reality. Pretending to be neutral or a moderate, Mr. Robinson continually sides with the side of deception, shell games and ulterior motives.
In his December 1st article, Target practice in Copenhagen, he wrote:

Climate-change skeptics are barking up the wrong smokestack. The shell game being played isn’t with the science, it’s with the solutions — specifically, the carbon emissions targets that enlightened world leaders are pledging to meet. That’s where the numbers don’t add up. … The United States, of course, never ratified the Kyoto treaty. Since 1997, carbon emissions here have increased by an estimated 7 percent. … The bottom line is that since the Kyoto agreement 12 years ago, worldwide carbon emissions have increased by nearly 30 percent. … It’s also true that even if all greenhouse emissions could magically be halted tomorrow, the elevated levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — higher than at any time in the past 800,000 years, according to researchers who study Antarctic ice-core samples — would take many decades to decline to historical levels. f the planet is warm now because of human-generated greenhouse gases, it’s going to get warmer. If the low-lying Maldives disappear beneath the Indian Ocean because the sea level rises, that will be a disaster. If “extreme” weather events such as major hurricanes do become more frequent, that will increase the potential for catastrophe in coastal cities around the world.

Evidence has shown recently that the skeptics were correct, yet Mr. Robinson continues to repeat the global warming hockey-stick data in his defense that humans have changed Earth’s climate. He may call it climate change instead of global warming, but his referral to increased strengths of hurricanes and other global warming hoax theories demonstrate that he is not aware that global temperatures have, with certain periods of fluctuations, been on the decrease. Which means that scientists in the 1970s who were predicting an Ice Age in the distant future have more credibility than the charlatans who call themselves scientists and national leaders and legislators who listened to them; which in turn also means that America and other nations are spending taxpayer funding unwisely.
I challenge Mr. Robinson as to his source when he states that America has increased its pollution by 7 percent. While clean air and water (water pollution requires our undivided attention) should always be an issue anywhere on the globe, Mr. Robinson, like the mindset of sociocrats, cannot distinguish between apples and oranges, preferring to mix them together in one convenient theoretical stew.
In the past, true scientists have come up with theories that have been proven wrong, and this is how it is in the world of science. Historians are sometimes changing their take on events in human history when a particular archaeological find provides new evidence, as well as paleontologists adjusting their established findings with discovery of dinosaur species new in the process of evolution. Scientists are performing their job in consistently seeking new facts and evidence and they look at failed theories not as something embarrassing, but enlightening and move on with their endeavor to seek new knowledge.
But not so for junk scientists, political prostitutes and greedy moguls of the business world who saw the global warming nonsense as a means of making good on a bad thing. In reality, global warming would not necessarily be a bad thing considering the abundance of plant life and climate-oriented opportunity for Earth’s creatures to continue on its course of evolutionary advancement. The major danger would be if the ice caps were to melt too quickly. Humans, like other creatures that have been around longer than humans, have adapted according to the rules of nature: the strongest and most adaptable survive.
Whatever the motive, putting together a fear package to be delivered to the public in order to get them to conform to the ecology movement or what has been called the Greenies is wrong, and after it is found out to be so, a discredit to any credibility they may have when seeking honest solutions to protecting natural resources, plant and animal life and the future of the human species. As Jon T. Hoffman posted at Washington Post on December 1st:
you accused climate-change skeptics of “misinterpreting” e-mails by climate scientists or taking them “out of context” and concluded that the e-mails do not undermine “the scientific consensus.” Yet the e-mails revealed that the supposed experts are aggressively trying to prevent serious scientific debate and, more important, to avoid release of their basic data, even to the point of destroying the information. The very essence of science is a reasoned and open debate over verifiable data. If one side is unwilling to submit its data to peer review, and is actively squelching debate, that calls into question the reliability of its conclusions, as there would otherwise be no reason to fear a debate. Mankind may indeed be warming the globe, but these internal communications make me even more skeptical than I was before.
Honest scientists do not get their feathers ruffled over a theory (if it remains so without clear and honest evidence) that has failed. Only politicians don’t admit they are wrong, except in the unique case of Mike Huckabee who gave clemency to the killer who recently performed a brutal mob-style murder of four law enforcement officers.
Al Gore and associates had planned to make trillions of dollars on the tailwind of the global warming theory, and now we can see why he was so quick to ring the alarm bell.
All legislation concerning global warming, especially cap-and-trade must be shelved. America and other nations must continue to strive for a cleaner environment of our air and water and boo junk scientists off stage. The scientific and the teaching community require a reformation period in which they must scrutinize their system that would release false/incorrect data and insist that a theory is fact (school textbooks and government lobbies) – all for the benefit of continued or increased government research funding. So that brings the matter into a different discussion – government funding of private entity research. Maybe its time to pull government’s fingers out of that pie as well.
Also see CRU Director Steps Down.

Ann Coulter in her article Do Smoking Guns Cause Global Warming, Too?

Global warming cheerleaders in the media were quick to defend the scandalous e-mails, explaining that, among scientists, the words “trick,” “hide the decline” and “garbage” do not mean “trick,” “hide the decline” and “garbage.” Also, of course, the defenders said that the words needed to be placed “in context” — the words’ check was in the mail, and they’d like to spend more time with their families. … The leaked e-mail exchanges also show the vaunted “scientists” engaging in a possibly criminal effort to delete their own smoking-gun e-mails in response to a Freedom of Information request. Next, the fanatics will be telling us that “among scientists,” this behavior does not indicate knowledge of guilt. … CRU was regularly cited as the leading authority on “global climate analysis” — including by the very news outlets that are burying the current scandal, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post. The CRU alone received more than $23 million in taxpayer funds for its work on global warming. 

Having claimed to have collected the most complete data on the Earth’s temperature for the last half century, the CRU’s summary of that data was used by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for its 2007 report demanding that we adopt a few modest lifestyle changes, such as abolishing modern technology, reverting to hunter/gatherer status and taxing ourselves into servitude. … The way this episode is unfolding, the environmentalists may be forced to drop their phantom threat of global warming and go back to the phantom threat of global cooling. 

Most disturbingly, the CRU-affiliated “scientists” were caught red-handed conspiring to kill the careers and reputations of scientists who dissented from the religion of global warming. Indignant that scientific journals were publishing papers skeptical of global warming, the cult members plotted to get editors ousted and the publications discredited. …

Liberals won’t tell us why Congress passed a law outlawing incandescent light bulbs by 2014 … They won’t tell us why Ten Commandments monuments must be stripped from every public space in America. Instead, they tell us “the Constitution” says so… They won’t tell us what Sen. Joe McCarthy lied about. They say: Historians are agreed that McCarthy was a liar. (These are the same historians who also stated as fact that “few American Communists were spies” — until decrypted Soviet cables proved that the Communist Party was awash with Soviet spies.)  … Even if the Earth were warming — which apparently it is not — the idea that humans using energy-efficient lightbulbs would alter the temperature of the globe is approximately as plausible as the Aztecs’ belief that they were required to wrench the beating heart out of living, breathing humans in order to keep the sun on its path. 


Advertisements