Meanwhile, Pharaoh continues to preach about his UNholy Grail quest of reducing carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere; the very gas needed by plants to survive, and in return, the source of the oxygen we and all other animals depend on to survive.
“When I had to balance the interests of my own safety, the privacy and career of a few scientists versus the well-being of billions of people living in the coming several decades … millions and billions already struggling with malnutrition, sickness, violence, illiteracy, etc. … the first two weren’t the decisive concern.”
“When I had to balance the interests of my own safety, the privacy and career of a few scientists versus the well-being of billions of people living in the coming several decades … millions and billions already struggling with malnutrition, sickness, violence, illiteracy, etc. … the first two weren’t the decisive concern.”
Climategate Leaker: Civilization is Being Destroyed by Lying “Science” Elitists
ANONYMOUS
HERO WHO EXPOSED THE GLOBAL WARMING EMAILS TELLS THE WORLD WHY HE DID
IT – AND RELEASES A HUGE FINAL TROVE OF SECRET CONVERSATIONS
by Ron Arnold, ©2013
(Mar. 26, 2013) — “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a
multi-decadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably.”
This private musing between two climate scientist colleagues first
surfaced along with a whole raft of embarrassing material in 2011, when
the anonymous Climategate leaker who calls himself “Mr. FOIA” leaked his
second set of emails from Britain’s disgraced Climate Research Unit
(CRU) at the University of East Anglia. Now, Mr. FOIA has emerged for a
third time, sharing with the world not only his entire batch of 220,000
encrypted emails and documents but also, for the first time, his thoughts.
Mr. FOIA had previously released two batches of 5,000 files each in 2009 and 2011. This enormousthird batch went to a network of friends for decoding, sorting and publication.
The first and second email batches contained conversations among
“scientists” who appear to have dishonored a once respectable
discipline, documenting that their claims of a “man-made global warming
crisis” look exactly like deliberate contrivances for academic career
gain, research funding and positions of political power in “the cause.”
Some big-name players are playing games with people’s lives and livelihoods.
Biggest Player. The United Nations Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the scientific panel whose reports
contain the work of Climategate figures – and are highly politicized and
publicized to increase fear of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW):
“imminent catastrophic man-made climate change.” Many horrendously
expensive and needless local, state, federal and international policies
have flowed from IPCC’s flawed reports.
Most Powerful Symbol. Professor Michael Mann’s “Hockey Stick Graph” was featured prominently in the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report.
It alleged that global temperatures were flat for a thousand years
before 1900, but then radically increased because of AGW. The chart
looks like a hockey stick, a long straight line that bends sharply
upward at the end. With recent IPCC admissions that temperatures have
not increased for at least the past 16 years, the curve has now plunged
downward to become as flat as the rest of the hockey stick, which is
where public trust in climate science is headed.
The Game. “The game is communicating climate change;
the rules will help us win it,” says an astounding, horrifying UK
government-funded booklet leaked by Mr. FOIA titled “The Rules of the Game: Evidence base for the Climate Change Communi...”
Written by the UK public relations firm Futerra for six UK agencies –
including The Carbon Trust – for use by ethics and public relations
tone-deaf scientists.
“The Rules” teaches sophisticated behavior change tactics, including:
“Climate change must be ‘front of mind’ before persuasion works” …
“Link climate change mitigation to positive desires/aspirations” …
“Beware the impacts of cognitive dissonance” and “Use emotions and
visuals” (e.g., scare people with the Hockey Stick Graph). It treats the
public like gullible idiots who can be frightened and manipulated by
seemingly trustworthy scientists to believe in AGW. For a long time, it
worked.
The Team. Phil Jones, head of the CRU; Peter Thorne
of the UK Met Office (the national weather service, originally the
Meteorological Office) was joined by Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis
section head of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research
(NCAR); Tom Wigley, also of NCAR; and the litigious Penn State
University Hockey Stick originator, Michael Mann.
James M. Taylor, senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute,
sums their actions up this way. The team consciously distorted and
actively suppressed critical knowledge, then furiously tried to hide
their actions by conducting a vicious smear campaign to discredit
critics.
Consciously distorted: NCAR’s Wigley once complained to
Mann, “Mike, the Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a
number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors
and by IPCC.…”
Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office warned Phil Jones, head of the CRU:
“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the
tropical troposphere, unless you accept one single study and approach
and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We
need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we
can find time to discuss these further if necessary.… I also think the
science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it, which for
all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”
Suppressed critical knowledge: Phil Jones wrote, “I’ve been
told that IPCC is above national FOIA Acts. One way to cover yourself and
all those working on the IPCC 5th Assessment Report would be to delete
all e-mails at the end of the process. Any work we have done in the
past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be
well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder [the U.S.
Department of Energy] in the past and they are happy about not releasing
the original station data.” The U.S. government was colluding with the
hiders, who received tens of millions of dollars over the years.
Jones wrote to Mann, “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have
had with Keith Briffa re AR4 [the IPCC 4th Assessment Report]? Keith
will do likewise. … We will be getting Caspar Ammann to do likewise.”
Tom Crowley, a key member of Mann’s global warming hockey team,
showed crass disregard for the lying and hiding: “I am not convinced
that the ‘truth’ is always worth reaching, if it is at the cost of
damaged personal relationships.” It’s more important to keep the career
back-scratching team happy.
The distortion, spin, suppression and smear campaign went on for
years. In fact, the revelations sparked a furious “hide the lies” denial
campaign that ironically calls skeptics “deniers.” What the skeptics
actually deny is that there has been much honest science involved in the
IPCC process; that there is any evidence to support claims that we face
an imminent climate crisis; and that humans are primarily responsible
for weather and climate variations that have always been controlled by
hundreds of complex, inter-related natural forces and processes.
“Hide the lies” generated lawsuits between climate science “believers” (what kind of real science requires belief?)
and skeptics of “dangerous man-made planetary warming” – along with
ridiculous conspiracy theories such as “Big Oil hired evil hackers in a
plot to discredit angelic climate scientists.”
Mr. FOIA denies these absurd allegations in his 3.0 message. “I
took what I deemed the most defensible course of action, and would do
it again,” he said. “That’s right; no conspiracy, no paid hackers, no
Big Oil. The Republicans didn’t plot this. USA politics is alien to me,
neither am I from the UK. There is life outside the Anglo-American
sphere.”
“The first glimpses I got behind the scenes did little to garner my
trust in the state of climate science – on the contrary,” Mr. FOIA
continued. “I found myself in front of a choice that just might have a
global impact.” Reveal what he had discovered, or keep it to himself and
let the lies continue?
Didn’t he fear discovery? “When I had to balance the interests of my
own safety, the privacy and career of a few scientists, and the
well-being of billions of people living in the coming several decades …
millions and billions already struggling with malnutrition, sickness,
violence, illiteracy, etc. … the first two weren’t the decisive
concern.”
Why did he do it? His answer was both angry and anguished: “Climate
science has already directed where humanity puts its capability,
innovation, mental and material ‘might’ …. The price of ‘climate
protection’ with its cumulative and collateral effects is bound to
destroy and debilitate in great numbers, for decades and generations,”
he wrote. “We can’t pour trillions in this massive
hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor and pretend it’s not [taking] away
from something and someone else.”
That’s the most important statement so far in the decades-old climate
debate: You’re forcing us backward into poverty and ignorance – for
nothing, except to further your careers, funding and power.
Less than a week later, London’s Mail on Sunday newspaper
ran an outraged feature based on the British Meteorological Office’s
recent admission that global surface temperatures haven’t risen in more
than 15 years. Citing a chart of predicted and actual temperatures, the Mail noted:
“Official predictions of global climate warming have been
catastrophically flawed. The graph on this page blows apart the
‘scientific basis’ for Britain reshaping its entire economy and spending
billions in taxes and subsidies in order to cut emissions of greenhouse
gases. The chart shows in incontrovertible detail how the speed of
global warming has been massively overestimated. Yet those forecasts
have had a ruinous impact on the bills we pay, from heating to car fuel
to huge sums paid by councils to reduce carbon emissions. The eco-debate
was, in effect, hijacked by false data.”
Is it improper to label the people responsible for this costly,
miserable catastrophe as “eco-thugs”? And should we worry that the
latest no-real-energy “energy security” proposal from the White House is
telling us that Mr. Obama has become America’s “Eco-thug in Chief,” who
will continue to peddle fraudulent science and nearly worthless
renewable energy to further his agenda? It’s worth pondering.
A set of pro forma “investigations” claim to have exonerated
PSU’s Mann. The internal PSU inquiry – with no impartial truth-seekers
involved – was not going to harm their grant-getting cash cow Mann;
instead, it whitewashed the evidence to ensure the preferred conclusion.
Professional science groups that relied upon public funding for their
financial survival fell in line behind a huge Tom Sawyer campaign of
“exoneration.” There was no exoneration.
Summaries presented in court filings for the case of American Tradition Institute v. University of Virginia and Michael Mann –
which demands release of Michael Mann’s emails – say, “Mann has never
been exonerated…. Exoneration requires investigation; investigation
requires pursuit aimed at discovering material facts. Mann’s employer
since 2005, Penn State University, has conducted no such thing. Neither
has the University of Virginia.”
The same conclusion applies to the UK’s Muir Russell and Oxburgh
inquiries, which didn’t even mention Mann, because they were
“investigating” only employees of the CRU.
I asked Christopher C. Horner, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and attorney in the ATI v. UVa/Mann lawsuit
for his take on the leaker’s message. He told me, “Whatever prompted
‘Mr. FOIA,’ I take it as a statement that, so far, the courts have
failed us, as have our political institutions – and he has concluded
that those in the public who have resisted the climate industry agenda
should now have a chance to review these taxpayer-financed records,
which are the subject of a remarkable campaign to subvert transparency
laws.”
We ourselves can’t avoid blame for the science disaster uncovered by Mr. FOIA. As Peter Foster of London’s Financial Times noted,
we didn’t heed President Dwight Eisenhower’s warning. “Most people are
aware of Ike’s warning in 1961 about the military-industrial complex,”
Foster wrote. Our fatal error was to ignore what he said next: “In
holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we
must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” [emphasis added]
Americans won’t take captivity. It’s time to demote our climate
masters to our humble servants. We won’t kill them. But we should
sentence them to prison – or Siberia, where they’ll wish the climate was
warming.
—————————–
Examiner columnist Ron Arnold is executive VP of the Center
for the Defense of Free Enterprise. Portions of this article originally
appeared in the Washington Examiner and are used by permission.
No comments:
Post a Comment