- "He (Phil Jones) further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming,
- although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend."...
- That’s because, despite the marked shift it effected in public opinion, its effect on public policy-making has been close to zilch.
For chapter and verse on the horrifying disjunct between what all sane, informed people know about “Anthropogenic Global Warming” (ie, it’s a crock) and what our governments are doing in response (ie, “Nyah nyah. Not listening. We’re going to go ahead with our crazy tax, regulation and wind farm schemes anyway”) I refer you to this
Since then, despite a series of unconvincing attempts to clear the Climategate scientists, it has become clear that the 20-year-old climate scare is dying on its feet. The money draining away from the Chicago exchange speaks louder than all those inquiries – and the same point will be made obvious in a fortnight’s time in Cancun, Mexico, as the UN attempts to salvage something from the wreckage at a conference
- that will draw scarcely a tenth of the numbers that met in Copenhagen.
- Scarcely a single politician dares question the Climate Change Act...."
- which should have ended the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) debate abruptly and evermore. Remarkably, it didn’t.
- largely, if not solely, on pseudo-scientific hocus-pocus persists.
But with Cancun’s “last chance to save the planet” climate talks just around the corner,
- the media is working overtime to explain away previous failures as anything other
- than the product of bad policy toward unproven hazards that they indeed were.
Much coverage from Copenhagen instead focused on hacked e-mails from a British university thatIgnore dissenting views? How about conspiring to block – not ignore -- the publication of rival scientific evidence?
some skeptics took as evidence of efforts by scientists to ignore dissenting views.
The scientists involved have since been cleared of wrongdoing.
- Or the Nixonian plots the communiqués disclosed, including conspirators discussing deleting emails and other documents in order to prevent disclosure of information subject to Freedom of Information Laws?
- Or how access might be prevented to data, source code, and algorithms in an attempt to prevent external evaluation of their conclusions?
- contributors to the U.N’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
- and World Meteorological Organization (WMO) reports on which international climate policy is made put all such reports and policies to question.
- revealed a widespread pattern of scientific misconduct amongst the very climate researchers on whose “science” the entire AGW theory and all consequent policy is based.
was and is about potentially astronomical criminal wrongdoing, not petty school-yard rivalries.
And as to those involved being “cleared of wrongdoing,” let’s consider both the tribunals and their actual pronouncements.
- On With the Showcase Investigations
As the Russell investigation was to focus primarily on policy, the UEA later asked Ronald (Lord) Oxburgh to lead another “independent” team to investigate the scientific methodology of CRU. As if by design, that action allowed many facets of each investigation to be ignored by one while fingers bore down on the other.
- The Russell report stated that although they didn’t actually examine the science -- such would be Oxburgh’s job -- the science was nonetheless correct.
- Meanwhile, Lord Oxburgh specifically stated that his inquiry, although named the Science Appraisal Panel, did not look at the science. Oh, and CRU’s was just fine.
- All three examinations took place within the country of physical jurisdiction, Great Britain, and none disappointed those of us anticipating whitewash.
But an investigation was also undertaken by a Pennsylvania State University Inquiry Committee into the specific actions of the institution’s employee -- Dr. Michael Mann. Based in the U.S., the Penn State inquiry offered perhaps the best hope of impartiality. After all, not only was a faculty member implicated at the deepest levels of the misconduct (See Understanding Climategate's Hidden Decline), but also in the attempt to destroy evidence.[T] here can be little doubt that none of [the inquiries] have performed their work in a way that is likely to restore confidence in the work of CRU. None has managed to be objective and comprehensive.
None has shown a serious concern for the truth. The best of them – the House of Commons inquiry – was cursory and appeared to exonerate the scientists with little evidence to justify such a conclusion.
The Oxburgh and Russell inquiries were worse.
- Unfortunately, it was Mann’s fellow Penn professors tasked with investigating him.
- the same emails that Dr. Phil Jones had suggested that he delete.”
- the panel requested that the subject of their investigation make the decision which emails were relevant to their investigation.
- In other words -- Michael Mann was allowed to cherry-pick not only data, but
- also the emails to be presented as evidence that he did so. Crazier still -- one of the charges
- Mann faced was that he had deleted incriminating emails.
- Mann wasted no time declaring himself “exonerated” and the MSM proved
- equally efficient in its blathering concurrence.
There’s little question that the initial silence and ultimate dismissal of the MSM was and remains a factor in Climategate’s surprisingly marginal effect on left-leaning policymakers. But the impacts, both societal and financial, of proposed policies shaped by the misinformation in question
- are nothing short of astounding.
- As such, it was the absence of any authoritative investigation, particularly here in the U.S, over the past 12 months which likely provided the greatest cover of all to alarmists both home and abroad.
The world still awaits a proper inquiry into climategate: one that is not stacked with global warming advocates, and one that is prepared to cross-examine evidence, interview critics as well as supporters of the CRU and other IPCC players, and follow the evidence where it clearly leads.
- Mann served as assistant professor of environmental sciences at University of Virginia from 1995 to 2005.
- These included five grant applications Mann prepared and any checks, purchase orders or other documents related to the pursuit of or disbursements from grant funds Mann received.
- To prove it, he has also demanded Mann’s emails, correspondence, or messages to or from a list of some 39 fellow scientists and academics, as well as any computer source code or algorithms created or edited by Mann.
- All of which will likely reveal so much more.
- And when Cuccinelli lost the first round in August by a judge’s ruling that “it’s not clear what [Mann] did was misleading, false or fraudulent in obtaining funds from the Commonwealth of Virginia,” WaPo
- was downright giddy.
- this time limiting his inquiry to just one specific $214,700 state-funded only grant
- Cuccinelli’s confidence that his newly focused approach will ultimately prevail did not please his detractors.
Talk about displacement. In the real world, it was Mann who suppressed “honest research and the free exchange of ideas” and manipulated data “because he does not like what science says about climate change.” And while UVA’s slippery slope argument of "academic freedom" is not entirely without merit, it’s not only light when weighed against the erroneous rewiring of an already flailing international economy (not to mention academic and scientific integrity) -- but also duplicitous.The attorney general's logic is so tenuous as to leave only one plausible explanation: that he is on a fishing expedition designed to intimidate and suppress honest research and the free exchange of ideas upon which science and academia both depend -- all because he does not like what science says about climate change.”
As Dr. Fred Singer wrote in his Sunday AT Piece:
The University of Virginia is fighting the demand for the data using outside lawyers and
I cannot comment on the legal implications of the AG's investigation. It should be noted, however, that UVA was quite willing to deliver up the e-mails of Professor Pat Michaels
- claiming "academic freedom" among other such excuses.
It makes the UVA protestations sound rather hypocritical.
- when Greenpeace asked for them in December 2009.
- 1979-1997 proxy data will likely prove it.
- omission of skeptics in its program to link reporters with scientists during the Cancun conference
- -- the same news organization said to define investigative journalism in the ‘70’s now championing deceitful defamation and nondisclosure.
Climate Realists Regain Committee Gavels
Obama hasn't merely failed to get a climate bill. Given the self-described (and self-inflicted) "shellacking" the president received Tuesday, he has made it all but impossible for a return to such an alignment of the stars this decade.
- over two dozen fellow Democrats who voted for the cap-and-tax bill Waxman co-sponsored were given the boot by enlightened voters who simply aren’t buying the snake oil climate alarmists are selling.
- What’s more, short the obstructive tactics of the befallen eco-socialist ruling class,
“The very integrity of the report [IPCC AR4] that the Obama administration has predicated much of its climate change policy has been called into question and it is unconscionable that this administration and Congress is willing to abdicate responsibility of uncovering the truth to the United Nations.”
- "politicization of science" that led to the corrupt findings released by the IPCC in his 2011 schedule.
And Issa’s not alone in seeking true (not Marxist) climate justice. Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), a likely choice to replace Waxman at Energy and Commerce, has stated that “no real science” exists to support climate policy and has also called for Climategate hearings.
Climategate: The Truth Will Out
Climategate’s initial revelations of corruption at Britain’s CRU (details here, here, here, and here) proved to be just the beginning. In the months that followed, allegations of similar misconduct among alarm-leaning climate scientists throughout the globe arose almost daily. And their affiliations were as momentous as those of Jones, Mann, and Briffa, et al, including
- the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) (See Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg), and ultimately, the IPCC (See IPCC: International Pack of Climate Crooks) itself.
What’s most distressing about this statement isn’t the fact that to meet that projection, we’d need to warm every decade for the next 8 by about the about same amount the IPCC claims we warmed in all of the previous century.The best science available suggests that without taking action to fundamentally change how we produce and use energy, we could see temperatures rise 9 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit over much of the United States by 2090.
- Nor that we’d need to start warming fast and soon, as the planet is currently in a cooling phase predicted to last for decades.
- and an advisor to Obama’s campaign and transition team.
- (Congress must overturn EPA’s Endangerment Rule) if the economy is ever to be saved.
- (read that United States)
- on everything from airline flights and international shipping to fuel and financial transactions to the tune of $100 billion annually.
- “international leaders” agreed to in Copenhagen and will
- be a primary goal at Cancun in a few weeks.
- But of greater magnitude will be its power to assure more durable protection by exposing the whole truth about “climate change.” As we’ve learned in the one year and sixty House seats since we first unzipped FOI2009 --
And, it seems, Climategate the commemorative status it deserves."
- (It would be nice, but I don't believe anything will change. The old-timers don't want anything done and will fight to get their way. They were happy to be in the minority and didn't want new people. Also organized crime is making big money from the 'climate' industry according to numerous reports.) ed.