The notoriety surrounding the leaked emails of leading climatologists, rightfully termed “Climategate” by one British journalist, has been woeful for those in the trenches of a long, protracted war of technical deception. The apparent massaging of data pertaining to rising temperatures around the globe has led to a justifiable outcry of “foul play” throughout the scientific community. To conclude that climate change is merely a hoax, however, would be an insidious misinterpretation of these shameless acts of disinformation.
Evidently, “global warming” as it has been portrayed in graphs to explode upward in recent years may have been exaggerated, though not fabricated entirely. CO2 emissions are still climbing annually, perpetuating a further concentration of greenhouse gases which, in turn, warm the planet, as has been the case since the birth of industry. What can be put to rest are the infamous “hockey stick” graphs, and Al Gore’s elevator ride to the top of his Inconvenient Truth projector screen. My point is that Gore’s elevator is merely replaced by a tall ladder, and (Penn State’s own) Michael Mann’s hockey stick becomes a low-grade ramp. Climatologists still cling to a potential two-degree shift per century, caused in no small part by the rising tide of greenhouse gases and our planet’s inability to absorb them through oceanic or vegetative processes. Critics of climate change suggest this gradual upward trending in temperatures is merely part of a natural planetary warming cycle. They propose abandoning Kyoto, denying humanity’s inherent responsibility to immediately cease what can only be described as slow and deliberate self-induced genocidal mania.
In a nation whose elected leaders have yet to ratify the Kyoto protocol, the U.S. needs to embrace that which the rest of the world has already come around on. The scientific community has a unified, unshakeable comprehension of how differing gases affect our planet’s atmospheric stability. The debate resides only in the rate at which the addition of manmade carbon emissions will increase global temperatures. Those that will now use the aforementioned emails to altogether deny man-made warming are advancing a treasonous rhetoric that is unreasonable as it is reactionary, and potentially dangerous if left unchecked.
Increases in CO2 levels were first measured in the early 1960’s, after a century of theorized debate on the effects industrialization was having on the climatic status quo. The man-made GHG argument waged on for decades, gradually picking up momentum, as did concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. That is until Dr. Philip Jones began ramping up threat levels.
Director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, Jones now finds himself at the center of a firebrand controversy of statistical ruse. His recommendations to delete emails pertaining to the CRU’s annual report to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were indeed a criminal act, since requests to view them (along with his research) were made under the UK’s Freedom of Information Act.
Also complicit in the fiasco is American climatologist Michael Mann, and by extension his “hockey stick graph” repeatedly referenced by Jones in a series of “peer review” exchanges, notably closed off to opposing viewpoints. In confirming one another’s theories on advanced global warming models, this widely trusted mythology of revised, drastic warming patterns managed to infiltrate the policy agenda of the UNFCCC with what is now considered “tainted data”, including COP15 earlier this month in Copenhagen, Denmark.
This trans-Atlantic conspiracy to perpetuate fear-based embellishments at the expense of the entire green earth movement had been previously exposed as fraudulent by Stephen McIntyre on his Climate Audit blog. Again, the only thing new here is the damning evidence of professional misconduct by self-proclaimed “men of science”.
With President Obama having drafted a framework agreement with world leaders at COP15 for an impending replacement to the Kyoto Protocol, he was well aware of the waning support here at home. Had he signed away our commitment to an international carbon tax, the Senate would’ve rallied against it, blocked the funding, further eroding the already shaken credibility of Obama’s first-year administration.
Capitalism naturally yields an allergic reaction to cap-and-trade legislation in all its forms. To some, purchasing our right to pollute the atmosphere equates to big government infringement on an otherwise free market. Still, carbon limits have been widely successful in many of the 186 countries that did sign legally binding commitments to Kyoto, serving as the best viable option currently available to governments attempting to rein in gaseous industrial waste.
According to author and columnist Thomas Friedman, “there’s only one thing as big as Mother Nature, and that’s Father Greed.” He suggests “the way you get big change in the world is you get the big players to do the right things for the wrong reasons… incentivize companies to get rich doing the right things.”
Cap-and-trade does not solve man-made global warming, but could serve as a catalyst to the green energy industry our job-starved nation hopes to embrace. Taxing companies that “over-pollute” would generate funds for the research and development of cleaner energy solutions. More importantly, the U.S. could finally stop thumbing its nose at the UNFCCC, often bringing our distinctly American brand of obstructionist politics to the floor of a world government body. Our insistence on constant inaction has led China to follow suit, making us the undisputed champs of global pollution, abjectly refusing to curb our national behavior in what amounts to nothing more than the immoral quest for profitability while unbalancing the ecosystem, however gradually.
Next year, Congress will consider an American initiative to obtain true data through an international body of respected scholars hand-picked by a bipartisan committee dedicated to saving our planet. The “revelations” brought to light last month mean we may have more time to face up to our own national culpability than the fear-mongers had previously frightened us into believing. Instead, the climate change debate continues headlong into the 21st century, but it must not be misappropriated as a “hoax”. Rather, as a one-degree-at-a-time program, worthy of cautious, accuracy-based legislative solutions.
Comments
My point is why defraud the world population for a politicle agenda! Free Markets alone are doing a wonderful job creating new green energy without the largest tax increase in history! Even after several scientist have came out against this fraud you have columnist such as Gene Lyons trying to white wash the whole scandel. Even the present administration still would rather lie about this than investigating this hoping it will go away. I for one am sick and tired of all the fraud and coverups!!!!
Sorry, climate science is dead right now, so what, the job it set out to do is done. It was a weapon used to create carbon trading, a financial skimming product, to tax the air we breathe out. The only losers in this are "the people".
The Climategate emails written by key UN-contributing climate scientists underscore the need for the United States to convene its own objective, transparent Climate Truth Commission. It defies common sense that we outsource our climate science to the UN then allow it to serve as both judge (IPCC) and advocate (Kyoto Protocol, Copenhagen).
-- Robert Moen, www.energyplanUSA.com
YOU SAY: "Next year, Congress will consider an American initiative to obtain true data through an international body of respected scholars hand-picked by a bipartisan committee dedicated to saving our planet."
This is prejudicial and bias at its foundation! First establish that our planet needs "saving"!!! Skipping over this ASSUMPTION is a grave error (or a political moe).
If you have ever driven down the Turnpike in PA, you have seen the huge boulders along the highway, or if you have tried to dig a whole in your back yard, you have undoubtedly struck rock. I asked about this to a Geologist at Penn State University when I took a class there years ago. He explained to that over a hundred thousand years ago, PA was covered by ice. A glacier, over hundreds of feet thick. It carved up the land, creating lakes, and dumping huge rocks everywhere. I asked him what made it soo cold. He had no good answer other than the earth was always going through climate change. I asked what made the earth warm up to our current temps, melting the glaciers. I got the same answer. So, now the earth warms a half of a degree, and it is all mankind's fault. If mankind is so powerful, how did the earth cool, and then warm all on its own a hundred thousand years ago? I have not seen an answer that has ever satisfied me.
CRU/NASA/NOAA/NCDC use GROUND based instruments of which all are showing an upward warming temperature trend since January 1998. CRU, whom has been caught manipulating the temperature data, who’s programmers admit that they used bad data, who admit to removing data from graphs which didn’t agree with their agenda, who have removed/blocked/censored all of their datasets from the internet, who’s leader has stepped down and is under investigation for fraud and whom the US taxpayer have funded with millions of taxpayer dollars. Much of the preceding also applies to their sister institutions NASA/NOAA/NCDC who have legal action pending to release their data and not to destroy their emails and program code. The silver lining here is that it leaves us only with the Satellite (UAH) data which has a margin of error of 3 one hundredths of a degree C accuracy, When graphed starting in January 1998 it shows a COOLING trend. Mass media will be forced to cover the AGW scam with facts and not hype
Genesis 2:17
Dougetit"Mass media will be forced to cover the AGW scam with facts and not hype" The mass media can go down the same road as AGW! They are as guilty of covering this up as the scientist whom perpatrated this hoax!!!!!!!
Joshua - I found this extremely well-balanced. Though, I still consider that a hoax transpired ... maybe the most dangerous kind, in that it masks a real thing that was inflated for drama.
I look forward to more credible science progressing (as most already is - the less-vocal scientists), leaving us a better-informed world.
I know of no one who enjoys seeing pollution.However, I do not support Gore, Goldman Sachs, Obama and others from Chicago in a scheme to profit from creating a derivative market from carbon credits. This will do nothing but make them money trading credits and won't lead to a greener future for the world. The climate is always getting hotter or colder why pay them for it. Sort of like paying me to make the sun come up in the morning. God sure rained on their Global Warming parade, it was just so cold it snowed.
Zstimman --- clearly it was dinosaur farts, and they paid the price for their unsustainable ways!!!
"The scientific community has a unified, unshakeable comprehension of how differing gases affect our planet’s atmospheric stability." A complete lie.
The contorted logic here is unbelievable:
>>"Climatologists still cling to a potential two-degree shift per century, caused in no small part by the rising tide of greenhouse gases and our planet’s inability to absorb them through oceanic or vegetative processes."
Yes -- but how did they get to that conclusion in the first place? Using the the BAD DATA they got from CRU!!! East Anglia and the IPCC have been pumping out this highly politicized, adulterated BS for years, and now we're supposed to accept that, because other scientists were also duped, we should remain duped as well? What kind of logic is that? It's like a guy saying to his insurance company "Yes, I lied on my claim about my car being stolen, but your adjuster said he believed it, so will you kindly pay up? After all, a lie on my claim is a bad thing, admittedly, but it doesn't change the fact that my car was stolen."
Isn't inducing FEAR to obtain an objective considered a 'terrorist' act these days? In all seriousness. If you use lies, and manipulation to induce a state of FEAR whereby you and your ilk benefit--isn't that terrorism? I think so, people, I truly believe so.
It is a hoax and all the wasted money, money given to buddies and pals, could have already funded the Plasma Garbage Annihilator (I don't know the exact name) and plenty of already know alternative sources that have been shelved for various reasons.
The earth doesn't need saving, humans just need to start thinking about something other than profits, control, and manipulation of the masses over the very few, and the earth would be saved... along with ALL its inhabitants (we are but ONE species and, granted, the most diabolical... but it doesn't have to be that way and it wouldn't with a transparent gov, REAL objective history and the like.
No, they are guilty. The UN is guilty. Members of our gov are guilty.
JohninGA: We better hope the earth stays warm, because the real terror will be when the cycle changes in many negative degrees as will happen. Our level of CO2 is low at this point in time, based on the earths history and, you are right, that statement is nonsense. Further if one checks out the correlation between CO2 and temp... well, there is NO CAUSATIVE CORRELATION. Further, the majority of antarctica on avg is -40C on avg. That would take quite a while to melt the ice, wouldn't one imagine? Actually, the ice in antarctica has expanded, so, the argument is useless anyway.
We need more CO2...not less if we want a healthy, green planet.
Oh, BTW: That chart showing how many people think the temp is rising is based almost entirely on MSM fed populations... they never heard dissenting views more than likely (or I would guess, because I hardly ever heard anything but FEAR claimed to be based on facts). As people start to hear FACTS and they can begin doing their own research, that number will fall further and further and it will soon be only those messiahs repeating the mantra in their jail cell in front of the mirror... I hope.
One can very easily obtain data from NASA on the warming and cooling trends of Earth and the other planets in our solar system. The data is very compelling against the case for man made global warming. Why? Because several planets in our solar system warmed equally as much (percentage basis) as did the Earth--during the same period--due to SOLAR ACTIVITY. Why would other planets in our solar system warm to the same relative degree as did the Earth if they did not have the same cause as did the earth?
Certainly Al Gore and those of his ilk don't claim that humans are responsible for polluting the atmospheres' of planets that HAVE NO ATMOSPHERE--do they? And if humans do pollute those non-existent atmospheres, how do we do it? Certainly not with cars, coal, oil, industry and the like?
The followers have been misinformed by corrupted data processed by computer models that are at best inaccurate run by people swimming in lies and deception. I realize that the Medieval Warming Period is the bane of the realclimate/CRU people and the Oil, Gas and Nuclear power companies that fund the realclimate/CRU enterprise, but it did happen and it was global. Someday they will need to come to terms with it, when they do their minds will finally be free to think on their own.
co2 is a product of warming not a cause.
there is not and never has been a consensus on AGW
true scientists (the kind that place their findings and methods in plain view) have been trying to explain this since Mann-bearpig's inconvenient ruse was released. See The Great Global Warming Swindle.
The flat earth used to be the consensus.
Try doing some research before you write on this topic again.
The historical record shows that mankind along with most other animals suffers great stress during cold periods. During the Little Ice Age (LIA) there were famines, plagues and revolutions.
In contrast, the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods were times of great prosperity. If the human race really has the power to influence global temperatures we should be working to turn up the thermostat.
Since Reagan the nation has been politically and solidly split 50/50. The Republicans fear that some unforeseen issue will tip the nation to it's inherently progressive slant last seen when FDR tipped the scales in 1932 to a progressive dynasty that lasted until 1980.
:
The issue may not be climate and it may not be healthcare but it will be something that makes people realize that they do not want a Mexican style democracy and, dare I say, Mexican style pollution.
I've read some of the e-mails, and snippets that keep getting cited. To be perfectly honest, the only foul play on the scientists' part seems to be mudslinging. I haven't seen any actual evidence of hoaxery as of yet, and I think it's no coincidence that the right, driven by agenda, do.
They talk about actual research being done, and occasionally mention skeptics. What's more, the defenses the scientists used are more consistent with the e-mails than the right's interpretations are. I don't see why I should be shocked by these. So far it just seems like the same sheep who hadn't heard of man-made climate change until Gore (and instantly grabbed on) are grabbing on to the new media frenzy that is "Climategate." This has become a perfect opportunity for the skeptical scientists to voice themselves more, but also for the aristocrats, rednecks, and conspiracy theorists to act like they have a shred in common with said skeptics.
This should be left to science.
Mann_Made_Climate_Change:
Michael_Hockey_Stick_Mann! = 0.2
Keith_TREE_RING_Briffa! = 0.3
If Medeval_Warming_Period = Exists$ And OTHER_SCIENTIST_WHO_DISAGREE > 1 Then
WhatWeTellThem_Temperature! = real_temperature! + Michael_Hockey_Stick_Mann! + Keith_TREE_RING_Briffa!
Hide_The_Decline_Trick$ = "YES"
Discredit_Others$ = "YES"
Cap_And_Trade$ = "$$$$$$$$$$$$$"
Else
Phil_Jones_Resigns = True
Do Until forever
Deny$ = "YES"
Loop
End If
AlbertMond,
That's your problem.. You've read "some of the e-mails" and "snippets" and see no issues before blaming the vast right wing conspiracy..
May I suggest your read "all" of the emails and become familiar with the laws of the Freedom of Information Act. Be informed.
Is there any coincidence to you going from site to site throwing the "mudslinging" phrase around??
Co2 is a reality and the earth goes through climate changes all the time. However we can't have "so called" scientists cherry picking data for their own ends. The Russians confirmed the cherry picking. The alarmists want to hide the little ice age and the medaevel warming period. If their work can't be scrutinized by other scientists and see if stand up then we have even bigger problems. The temperature has actually dropped not risen.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!