Some environmental leaders have been working to minimize the scandal of ClimateGate, by focusing on the fact the hacked email archive of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit has nothing, besides a few cherry-picked quotes taken out of context, that casts a shadow of a doubt upon validity of modern climate science. They are wrong. ClimateGate is a huge scandal, probably bigger than they even imagine. The real scandal is not the email archive, or even how it was acquired, sorted, and uploaded to a Russian server, but rather the emerging evidence of a coordinated international campaign to target and harass climate scientists, break and enter into government climate labs, and misrepresent climate science through a sophisticated media infrastructure on the eve of the international climate talks. … This campaign has been proved to be international in scope … coordinated with the sophisticated communications infrastructure founded and built by former tobacco lobbyists that were hired by fossil fuel interests, such as ExxonMobil, to cast doubt on the links between the sale and use of fossil fuels and the changing of the world’s climate. This infrastructure was detailed by within Hoggan’s book, as well as documented in extensive detail by projects like . One major mistake these groups, including ClimateDepot and Newsbusters, made was in labeling this manufactured crisis as ClimateGate. … An investigation into who is coordinating, funding, and leading a last-ditch effort to stall climate legislation through the use of criminal tactics and a well-funded and coordinated disinformation campaign seems to be beyond the capacity of the field of journalism.
After nearly a month and counting since the story broke on the biggest scandal in scientific history, a major daily newspaper has finally undertaken a thorough examination of the evidence in the Climategate scandal. Granted, the newspaper in question is not in the United States but the U.K. And still, even after a month the television news broadcasts of ABC, CBS, and NBC continue to ignore the story. published their findings of a special investigation into Climategate. …
Clearly, the earth today is nowhere near the level of global warmth that was typical of the Medieval warm period, despite our over-abundance of carbon going into the air. And the data proved it, which meant that global warming proponents kicked up into high-gear their attempts to cover up, delete, or minimize this damning information. … , we highlighted another of the scandal’s smoking guns. More information on this continually breaking story can be found at
A key question, of course, revolves around the motivation for perpetrating such a hoax. Why would a group of scientists participate in such an egregious breach of professional ethics? , news commentator Cal Thomas answered that question quite well–‘scientists can’t get grants if they don’t toe the line on climate change.’
As the CRU uproar plays itself out, it may well fracture the left-scientific partnership that has distorted scientific research for decades, along with providing a much-needed whipping for environmentalism, the most influential offshoot of contemporary leftism. Climategate is all the worse because it was unexpected. The warmists really did think they had it wrapped up, that they had pulled off the AGW fraud and needed only to formalize it at the international level to guarantee themselves a free ride. This was never quite the case — polls showed increasing public skepticism as various warming horrors failed to materialize and the day-to-day weather grew cooler. But the warmists had corralled the bureaucrats and politicians, and that, they thought, was all they needed. … Phil Jones, director of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit and author of a large fraction of the offending messages, has stepped aside “temporarily” to await the results of an investigation by the university. While this seems rather less than the required minimum — such an investigation should be carried out on a much wider scale by disinterested parties — it is remarkable in and of itself. … It may well be that both directors will be whitewashed by their respective institutions. But discredited as they are, it really doesn’t matter. Neither one of them can ever again pose as the disinterested, incorruptible scientist, and their programs will remain irrevocably tainted. Science as a discipline has its own way of dealing with these types. Papers will be returned with a thank-you note. Grant proposals will become tied up. Grad students will be advised to look elsewhere for doctoral material. … The governmental impact has been almost as serious. In Australia, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s attempt to push through a cap-and-trade bill appeared close to fruition after Liberal (read: center-right) Party chief Malcolm Turnbull threw in his support. But on December 3rd, no fewer than half a dozen Liberal MPs walked out over the deal, leading to the ouster of Turnbull and his replacement by Tony Abbot, who views cap-and-trade as an enormous “Slush fund … run by a giant bureaucracy.”
While perhaps not front-page news in the U.S., this would ordinarily be a story of considerable political interest to be covered in detail. But along with every other aspect of Climategate, our dishonest media have given it the preemptive Winston Smith treatment. Again, this doesn’t matter. The consequences are already reverberating through international political life.
In the U.K., the Conservative Party has braced up its “Wet” (the Brit equivalent of “RINO”) leader, David Cameron, to oppose the warming agenda or be shown the door. Developments on this side of the big water have not been as dramatic, though at least one GOP contingent has been emboldened to travel to Copenhagen to wreck the Greens’ party. We can expect more fireworks when cap-and-trade comes up for a vote early next year. A major shift is also apparent in public attitudes. The Greens labored mightily to convert global warming to received wisdom — something “everybody knew” in much the same way they know that “abortion is beneficial” and that “we lost in Iraq.”
It could be argued that government never shifts at all. Carol M. Browner, Obama’s environmental “czar” (or should it be “czarina” here?) stated that she would continue to rely on the “consensus” as expressed in the IPCC reports. She is evidently unaware that much of the data in the reports originated from the East Anglia CRU. Or perhaps she’s very much aware — Browner is widely known to have ordered the destruction of “secondhand smoke” data in the ’90s, and more recently assured that no record of alternate-fuel negotiations between her office and the auto companies would be put in writing. Browner could probably teach both Jones and Mann a thing or two. …
On Pearl Harbor Day, the EPA announced its decision to treat CO2 as a deadly poison on the same level as DDT and Alar. If Congress refuses to pass cap-and-trade, the EPA will have no choice but to track down and apprehend any individual emitting carbon dioxide within U.S. borders. As Kimberley Strassel pointed out in the WSJ, this lets Congress off the hook by making CO2 “pollution” an Executive responsibility, which means that the ruling will never go into effect. What sane politician would allow such a series of economy-wrecking regulations to be put in place A) during a serious recession and B) in an election year? …
The first order of business should be calls for the release of e-mails, data, and related files from the other institutions involved in Climategate. NASA/GISS has been the source of several pieces of questionable “evidence,” particularly the Y2K glitch that universally raised recent temperatures by more than a degree Fahrenheit. … It’s too soon to say that warming is dead — these ideas return from the grave even more often than Jason and his axe. … But warming is politically dead. It would require a brave politician to inconvenience voters, steal their money, and ruin their jobs based on premises that may be fraudulent. … It would also be nice to have a society that pays serious attention to the environment and our impact on it, above and beyond all the little clichés about recycling and carbon footprints, in which serious thought is given to what kind of balance between a modern society and nature is possible and how far we want to go in achieving it. But we’re not going to get that from environmentalism, which has proven itself to be fanatical, dishonest, and dangerous. Eventually, we’re going to require a revival of the old concept of conservation, adapted to the needs of a new millennium. But don’t hold your breath waiting for it.
If I’m wrong, somebody ought to tell the polar ice caps that they’re free to stop melting.