Climategate Gets More Damning!

We never were believers in man-caused global warming and I am sure there will be some who will disagree but as we continue to read more email communications from the promoters of this junk science, our viewpoint is becoming more vindicated. 

The reasons for our doubt is based upon a couple issues.  The first was, who was promoting the idea . When you have former Vice President  Al Gore making millions on this scheme while still driving SUVs, flying private planes and living in  massive houses with out any retrofitting to benefit the climate, our hypocrisy meter jumps sky high.  Someone who really believed what he was promoting would LIVE it, Gore isn't.

Additionally, when the world leaders of the global warming movement went to Copenhagen in hundreds of private planes and arrived at their meeting in limousines, it showed me the whole group was involved in a scam!
 I am not a scientist but I have some basic scientific questions. As I understand it, a model must be 95% accurate as to be considered predictable. The model that has been used to predict the dire environmental events is only 90% by ICCC admission. This is a significant difference.

Another basic tenant of the global warming fear crowd is that the icebergs will melt, flooding lower lying areas around the world.  This might be right if one ignored basic science. Fill a glass with ice, pack it to the top and let it melt. The glass does not overflow. There is one main reason, ice takes up more space than water. If the icebergs melt, it will take up less space and therefore will not flood the earth. The false argument is ignoring basics. Why?  People are basically ignorant of basic science and the story pulls at the heart strings.


So when we read the emails, I am not surprised at all to read that the promoters had secret concerns. If the "hockey stick" increase in temperatures was proven to be false, their whole argument would be damaged significantly.  So they arbitrarily "adjusted" the data to match the argument. Not very scientifically pure, but they have other reasons.

We believe they want to hurt the developed nations by transferring trillions to the non-developed countries through schemes like "cap and trade" which really is a transfer of pollution credits from one nation to another. It does nothing to reduce the pollution, just moving dollars.

Here is the latest on Climategate, enjoy it and let me know what you think.

Conservative Tom


Climategate (Part II) – A sequel as ugly as the original.

(A small snippet redacted from an extensive, in-depth shocking analysis)

BY STEVEN F. HAYWARD



The Weekly Standard, DEC 12, 2011

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=2357

… Climategate I, the release of a few thousand emails and documents from the CRU (Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University) in November 2009, revealed that the united-front clubbiness of the leading climate scientists was just a display for public consumption. The science of climate change was not “settled.” There was no consensus about the extent and causes of global warming; in their private emails, the scientists expressed serious doubts and disagreements on some major issues. In particular, the email exchanges showed that they were far from agreement about a key part of the global warming narrative​—​the famous “hockey stick” graph that purported to demonstrate that the last 30 years were the warmest of the last millennium and which made the “medieval warm period,” an especially problematic phenomenon for the climate campaign, simply go away. (See my “Scientists Behaving Badly,” The Weekly Standard, December 14, 2009.) Leading scientists in the inner circle expressed significant doubts and uncertainty about the hockey stick and several other global warming claims about which we are repeatedly told there exists an ironclad consensus among scientists. (Many of the new emails make this point even more powerfully.) On the merits, the 2009 emails showed that the case for certainty about climate change was grossly overstated.



More damning than the substantive disagreement was the attitude the CRU circle displayed toward dissenters, skeptics, and science journals that did not strictly adhere to the party line. Dissenting articles were blocked from publication or review by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), requests for raw data were rebuffed, and Freedom of Information Act requests were stonewalled. National science panels were stacked, and qualified dissenters such as NASA prize-winner John Christy were tolerated as “token skeptics.”



One thing that emerges from the new emails is that, while a large number of scientists are working on separate, detailed nodes of climate-related issues (the reason for dozens of authors for every IPCC report chapter), the circle of scientists who control the syntheses that go into IPCC reports and the national climate reports that the U.S. and other governments occasionally produce is quite small and partial to particular outcomes of these periodic assessments. The way the process works in practice casts a shadow over one of the favorite claims of the climate campaign​—​namely, that there exists a firm “consensus” about catastrophic future warming among thousands of scientists. This so-called consensus reflects only the views of a much smaller subset of gatekeepers. … Definite examples of political influence have emerged already from a first pass over a sample of the massive cache.



No amount of context can possibly exonerate the CRU gang from some of the damning expressions and contrivances that appear repeatedly in the new emails. More so than the 2009 batch, these emails make clear the close collaboration between the leading IPCC scientists and environmental advocacy groups, government agencies, and partisan journalists. There are repeated instances of scientists tipping their hand that they’ve thrown in their lot with the climate ideologues. If there were only a handful of such dubious messages, they might be explained away through “context,” or as conciliatory habits of expression. But they are so numerous that it doesn’t require an advanced degree in pattern recognition to make out that these emails constitute not just a “smoking gun” of scientific bias, but a belching howitzer. Throughout the emails numerous participants refer to “the cause,” “our cause,” and other nonscientific, value-laden terms to describe the implications of one dispute or another, while demonizing scientists who express even partial dissent about the subject, such as Judith Curry of Georgia Tech.



These are only a few of the many problems with the climate models on which all of the predictions of doom decades hence depend. It will take months of careful review to sort the wheat from the chaff, but there is enough evidence already to support the conclusion that the climate science establishment has greatly exaggerated what it knows.



… If Climategate II does poor box office, it won’t be because the various internal reviews exonerated the CRU from the narrow allegations of fraud in Climategate I, but because the whole show has become a crashing bore. The latest U.N. climate summit that opened last week in Durban, South Africa, is struggling to keep the diplomatic circus on life support. … Yet there is one more tantalizing detail that has been largely overlooked in the commentary so far. According to “FOIA,” the online name of the hacker/leaker behind the release of these emails, there are another 220,000 emails still out there, blocked by a heavily encrypted password that “FOIA” vaguely threatens or promises to release at some future date. Stay tuned for Climategate III.



Steven F. Hayward is the F.K. Weyerhaeuser fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of the Almanac of Environmental Trends