“Mr. Gore and his cohorts have consistently smeared climate realists and policy skeptics as “deniers,” paranoiacs or corporate shills. “Denier” invokes Holocaust denial. Paranoia is linked to those conspiracy theorists who claim that Neil Armstrong’s lunar landscape was really a movie backlot. The corporate shill angle is usually based on “exposing” some skeptical individual’s or organization’s link to Big Oil, which is in fact irrelevant unless you judge science on the basis of funding rather than objectivity. Oil companies in fact devote far more money to supporting climate hysteria.
Nevertheless, the corporate angle means that skeptics can simultaneously be identified as crazy conspiracy theorists, and part of a corporate conspiracy!”
Peter Foster: The Goracle speaks on Climategate
Posted: December 11, 2009, 9:10 PM by NP Editor
The emails, far from being meaningless or out of context, show alteration of data and attempts to rig the peer review process
By Peter Foster
True believers in catastrophic man-made climate change have been waiting for Al Gore to lead them through the Valley of Climategate. This week, The Goracle spoke. Appearing on CNN, he claimed that the emails to and from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia were more than 10 years old and amounted to a mere discussion of “arcane points.” What this was really about, he said, was an example of “people who don’t want to do anything about the climate crisis taking things out of context and misrepresenting them.” But then what would you expect Mr. Gore to say about his co-recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize? If they go down, he goes down.
The emails, (which in fact date up to late this year), far from being meaningless or out of context, show alteration of scientific data and flagrant attempts to rig the peer review process, which the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has always claimed was the bedrock of its scientific objectivity.
During his CNN interview, Mr. Gore went through his usual parade of extreme weather factoids, technological wonkery and green stimulus fantasies, while spouting blatant untruths. Asked about the relative contribution of humans to atmospheric CO2 emissions, he claimed that they put up “the majority” (in fact, they are estimated to contribute about one-twentieth). Interestingly, though, Mr. Gore didn’t use one of the staples of his climate vaudeville act: that “deniers” are like those who believe that the moon landing was faked. Perhaps even he lacked the gall to bring up conspiracy theories when the evidence of a genuine conspiracy is so obvious.
Mr. Gore and his cohorts have consistently smeared climate realists and policy skeptics as “deniers,” paranoiacs or corporate shills. “Denier” invokes Holocaust denial. Paranoia is linked to those conspiracy theorists who claim that Neil Armstrong’s lunar landscape was really a movie backlot. The corporate shill angle is usually based on “exposing” some skeptical individual’s or organization’s link to Big Oil, which is in fact irrelevant unless you judge science on the basis of funding rather than objectivity. Oil companies in fact devote far more money to supporting climate hysteria.
Nevertheless, the corporate angle means that skeptics can simultaneously be identified as crazy conspiracy theorists, and part of a corporate conspiracy! For example, U.S. warmist Senator Barbara Boxer recently claimed that “email-theft-gate” required “looking at a criminal activity which could well have been co-ordinated.” We don’t have to ask who did the co-ordinating.
The anti-skeptic smears serve to avoid addressing the valid issues they raise. Mr. Gore has resolutely refused to debate his opponents on the basis that there is nothing to debate. The shenanigans at CRU prove there is. The new line of obfuscation is that the past century’s temperature record is still intact and the glaciers are still melting! But the key issue is why, and what can or should be done about these alleged facts (which now require treble checking).
Nobody is denying that the past 10 years may have featured some of the hottest years “on record,” but that is not what is in dispute. What is in dispute is the degree to which human activity is responsible. Also, “hot compared to what?” The warming of the past century has been relatively mild, and “the record” goes back only a relatively short time.
According to The Scotsman: “The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will investigate claims that the hacked emails have revealed a conspiracy to boost the evidence for man-made global warming.”
Fat chance. The IPCC was designed to boost the evidence for man-made global warming. The CRU doesn’t consist of some group of rogue scientists. They were, and are, central to the IPCC’s fundamental political purpose. The true significance of the “hide the decline” email is not that CRU’s head Phil Jones substituted actual for proxy readings in a temperature series, but that the fact that the proxies deviated from actual readings further undermined their validity for judging past temperatures and, in particular, for “getting rid of” the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). The MWP was inconvenient because if global climate was as warm today as a 1000 years ago, then that would undermine the claim that the warming of the past century had to be based on human activity, which was the result needed to meet the UN’s larger agenda.
Those who created the IPCC want global taxation and regulation powers, vast new transfers to the Third World (despite the manifest failures of such transfers in the past) and an end to industrial society as we know it. That’s not a conspiracy theory; it’s their stated purpose.
One of those previously fingered as a deranged conspiracist is Dr. William Gray, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU) and a renowned hurricane forecaster. Dr. Gray suggests that the Climategate revelations “are but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well-organized international climate warming conspiracy that has been gathering momentum for the last 25 years. This conspiracy would become much more manifest if all the emails of the publicly funded climate research groups of the United States and of foreign governments were ever made public.”
Now there’s an idea. But can you imagine how much “raw data” would, like that of Dr. Jones, get “lost …” Or am I being paranoid?
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>
Etiketter: Al Gore, Carbon Trading, CO2, Etanol, EU, EU Parlamentet, Global Warming Hysteri, Havsis, Havsnivå, IPCC, Isbjörnar, Journalism, Klimatmodeller, Korruption, Kyoto, Media, News, Obama, Orkaner, Peer review, Politik, Press, Riksdagen, Snötäcket, Temperaturdata, Traditional Media, UN, Vindkraft