Climategate Part II – The Fallout
By Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
www.climateclinic.com
“Having a PhD after one’s name does not make one a “scientist” any more than having an MBA after one’s name makes one a Master Mechanic. Both are absurd.” Jack Koenig, Researcher and Author
Climategate, one of the biggest scandals over the past 100 years, has all but been ignored by the Main Stream Media (MSM). And the reason seems to be simple: the MSM has been on the forefront of championing global warming from its inception… shortly after their Global Cooling hysteria ended. Once again, the MSM failed America and by admitting their errors, perhaps they are fearful it will hurt their ratings. But according to most major polls, they needn’t fret: their ratings are already lower than whale poop and can’t sink much further!
An unscientific study – conducted during the last week of November 2009 – used the search term “climategate” on most popular media websites to measure the term’s coverage. The results were predictable: the only liberal site using the term Climategate was the New York Times. On the other hand, most centrist and center right sites had an abundance of hits. Interestingly, the liberal Chicago Tribune did not have a “hit” using “climategate,” but did have a 120 word article on the Republican’s call to investigate the “hacked” emails. Perhaps the brevity of the article was necessitated by their 805 word article on the difficulties facing homosexual blacks in Chicago’s “Boystown.” Their priorities speak volumes for their content and explain why this is a failed and bankrupt paper.
Another study, this one by Richard North, developed an index to show just how derelict the MSM is on focusing on Climategate. Tiger Woods delivered 22,500,000 web pages and 46,025 news pages for a ratio of web to news of 489 to one. Climategate delivered 28,400,000 web pages and only 2,930 news pages for a ratio of 9,693 to one. Or to look at it another way, whereas there were ~1.3 Climategate web pages for each one of Tiger Woods, there were only .21 news articles for every one on Tiger Woods. Talk about a lopsided statistic!
But Europe is a different story. Climategate is all over the map, and much to the chagrin and angst of the principle players, it doesn’t look like it’ll end soon.
As suggested by the previous ratios, lack of media coverage hasn’t prevented the spread of information. Climategate became viral on the Internet shortly after the story broke and has been going bonkers ever since. And all this in spite of attempts by many to stop, hinder, or inhibit its circulation.
Ramifications from Climategate have been swift, and in some cases unpredictable. In addition to the original Climategate, whistle blowers have begun coming out of the woodwork and exposing other mischievous behavior including:
-
* The corruption of Denmark’s CO2 exchange
* The accusation that the State University of NY (Albany) and Queens University in Belfast have also engaged in withholding climate data
* Documents have surfaced showing the United Nation’s heavy involvement in this fraud relate to their desire to be the world’s governmental body
Additional fallout includes:
-
* Phil Jones, Director (and possibly main person behind AGW fear mongering) of the Hadley Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia was forced to step down pending an investigation
* Michael Mann, Director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University (inventor of the infamous “hockey stick” purporting to show unprecedented warming) is under investigation by Penn State authorities
* Michael Mann, in an apparent attempt to cover his backside, claimed in a BBC interview that he could not justify a request from Phil Jones that he (Mann) should delete some of his own emails to prevent others from viewing them
* Australia’s Liberal Party (actually conservative) overthrew their leadership, partially resulting from Climategate
* The Australia Parliament voted to reject cap and trade based on questions raised primarily by Climategate
* China, India, Brazil, and South Africa promise a joint walkout at Copenhagen if pressured by anyone into accepting any limitations
* The UK Met Office (one of the three main sources of temperature data used by the UN’s global warming group) has announced a three year program to re-examine 160 years of climate data (the British government is attempting to stop these plans because it will fuel the anthropogenic global warming skeptics)
* The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change admitted yesterday that it needed to consider the full implications of the e-mails and whether they cast doubt on any of the evidence for man-made global warming
* Pollster Rasmussen reports that 59% of Americans now believe scientists falsified their research in order to support their own global warming agenda (only 22% believe the UN is a reliable source)
And finally, Kevin Trenberth has been lamenting the fact his emails were amongst those released and said that he felt “violated.” Considering his apparent involvement in this sordid mess, that should be the least of his problems. Some of the posted emails seem to suggest Trenberth has been – and still is – up to his eyeballs in Climategate.
In the next issue of “Climategate,” we will shed some light on how these emails and supporting attachments actually got on the Internet. Was it by an evil, nefarious “hacker” from Russia as the media claims… or was it by another method?
Filed under: Climategate
From what I’ve been reading, this is only the tip of the iceberg. I’m really looking forward to the rest of “the package.”
This is a classic example of what happens when you can’t control your self righteousness and arrogance. But like everything else governmental, it’ll be swept under the rug and we’ll begin hearing the old refrain “It’s time to move on.”
Right!
“Climategate” started out when there appeared on the Internet a collection of e-mails of a group of climatologists who work in the University of East Anglia in England. These documents reveal that some climatologists of international preeminence have manipulated the data of their investigations and have strongly tried to discredit climatologists who are not convinced that the increasing quantities of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are the cause of global warming.
It is true that a majority of the scientists who study climatic tendencies in our atmosphere have arrived at the conclusion that the world’s climate is changing, and they have convinced a group of politicians, some of whom are politically powerful, of the truth of their conclusions.
A minority, however, is skeptical. Some believe that recent data that suggest that the average temperature of the atmosphere is going up can be explained by natural variations in solar radiation and that global warming is a temporary phenomenon. Others believe that the historical evidence indicating that the temperature of the atmosphere is going up at a dangerous rate is simply not reliable.
Such lacks of agreement are common in the sciences. They are reduced and eventually eliminated with the accumulation of new evidence and of more refined theories or even by completely new ones. Such debates can persist for a period of decades. Academics often throw invective at one another in these debates. But typically this does not mean much.
But the case of climate change is different. If the evidence indicates that global warming is progressive, is caused principally by our industrial processes, and will probably cause disastrous changes in our atmosphere before the end of the twenty-first century, then we do not have the time to verify precisely if this evidence is reliable. Such a process would be a question of many years of new investigations. And if the alarmist climatologists are right, such a delay would be tragic for all humanity.
The difficulty is that economic and climatologic systems are very complicated. They are not like celestial mechanics, which involves only the interaction of gravity and centrifugal force, and efforts to construct computerized models to describe these complicated systems simply cannot include all the factors that are influential in the evolution of these complicated systems.
All this does not necessarily indicate that the alarmist climatologists are not right. But it really means that if global warming is occurring, we cannot know exactly what will be the average temperature of our atmosphere in the year 2100 and what will be the average sea level of the world’s ocean in that year.
It also means that we cannot be confident that efforts by the industrialized countries to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will have a significant influence on the evolution of the world’s climate.
Alas, the reduction of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would be very costly and would greatly change the lives of all the inhabitants of our planet–with the possibility (perhaps even the probability!) that all these efforts will be completely useless.
Harleigh Kyson Jr.
Good response. Well written and says volumes.
But I disagree with a major point:
You said: “It is true that a majority of the scientists who study climatic tendencies in our atmosphere have arrived at the conclusion that the world’s climate is changing..”
Do you have any figures, names, etc. to back up that statement? Just because someone claims a consensus doesn’t make it so. The UN steadfastly refuses to disclose the names of those in the “consensus,” and that in itself raises a red flag.
I heard Mark Moreno claim there were only 9 AGW players involved in writing the final draft of the IPCC’s report.
Obviously, there are many players behind the scenes because you simply don’t advance if you don’t play by “their” rules. But all in all, I wouldn’t be surprised if there are fewer then 100 credentialed “scientists” (and I use that term lightly) behind this fraud.
After listening to those “mad scientists” at Copenhagen, I can’t help but wonder how much longer they can continue on with this farce. But then again, they seem to have evolved into a typical bureaucracy, and God only knows how impossible it is to shut down those beasts!