Townhall.comby Paul Driessen
As legions of scientists, activists, journalists, bureaucrats and politicians prepare to embark for Copenhagen, a predictable barrage of climate horrors has been unleashed, to advance proposals to slash hydrocarbon use and carbon dioxide emissions, restrict economic growth, and implement global governance and taxation.
CO2 has reached a new high (0.0385% of the atmosphere), weâ€™re told, because of cars and â€œcoal-fired factories of death.â€ Rising seas are forcing families to â€œflee their homes.â€ Oceans are becoming â€œtoxic.â€ Climate change is driving Philippine women into prostitution. Higher temperatures will â€œincrease the likelihood of civil war in Sub-Saharan Africaâ€ and â€œbring human civilization to a screeching halt.â€ The Associated Press, BBC and other â€œmainstreamâ€ media dutifully regurgitate every press release.
However, the planet and science are not cooperating with the fear-mongering. There has been no statistically significant global warming for over a decade, despite steadily increasing CO2 levels â€“ and for several years average annual global temperatures have actually declined.
Carbon dioxide plays only a minor role, many scientists now say, and our climate is still controlled by the same natural forces that caused previous climate changes: periodic shifts in ocean currents and jet streams, water vapor and cloud cover, evaporation and precipitation, planetary alignments and the shape of the Earthâ€™s orbit, the tilt and wobble of Earthâ€™s axis, cosmic ray levels and especially solar energy output.
Far worse for the Climate Armageddon movement, newly released emails from its leading scientists reveal a cesspool of intimidation, duplicity and fraud that could rock Copenhagen and the alarmist agenda to their core. The emails cast deepening suspicion over global warming data, science and models.
They reveal an unprecedented, systematic conspiracy to stifle discussion and debate, conceal and manipulate data, revise temperature trends that contradict predictions of dangerous warming, skew the peer-review process, pressure scientific journals and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to publish alarmist studies and exclude dissenting analyses, and avoid compliance with Freedom of Information requests.
British Climate Research Unit (CRU) chief Phil Jones to Penn State climatologist Michael Mann, of Hockey Stick infamy: â€œCan you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [the IPCCâ€™s Fourth Assessment Report and Briffaâ€™s suspect tree-ring data]. Keith will do likewise.â€
Jones to Mann: â€œIf they [Canadian researchers Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre] ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act in the UK, I think Iâ€™ll delete the file rather than send it to anyone.â€
(These actions appear intended to avoid Freedom of Information inquiries. Jones had previously told a researcher, â€œWhy should I make the data available, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?â€ Drs. J&M, thatâ€™s the scientific method â€“ to ensure that research and experiments are honest, accurate and replicable. Deleting files and data also raises serious ethical, scientific and legal issues.)
Jones: â€œI canâ€™t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth, lead author of two IPCC reports] and I will keep them out somehow â€“ even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!â€ (Thereby excluding non-alarmist peer-reviewed papers and skewing the IPCC process.)
Jones: â€œIâ€™ve just completed Mike [Mannâ€™s] trick of adding in the real temps to each series, to hide the decline [in average global temperatures] .â€¦â€ (Maintain a warming trend, despite contrary evidence.)
Climate scientist Tom Wigley to Mann: â€œIf you think [Yale Professor and Global Renewables editor James] Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.â€ (Saiers was subsequently dismissed. The American Geophysical Union is a once professional society that has likewise gotten into the censorship, intimidation, climate alarm and money train business.)
These are the very tip of the melting iceberg. To gauge the scope, depth and depravity of the conspiracy, visit Bishop Hill, ClimateDepot.com and An Elegant Chaos on the web.
These supposed scientists built their careers and reputations on conjuring datasets, computer models, scenarios and reports â€“ all claiming that modern civilizationâ€™s use of hydrocarbons is about to destroy the planet, and all financed by well over $100 billion in US, UK, EU and other taxpayer money.
Realist climate experts have long smelled a rat. The alarmistsâ€™ data didnâ€™t match other data. Their models never worked. Their claims of â€œconsensusâ€ and â€œunprecedentedâ€ warming had no basis in fact. Too many grant and publication decisions were decided by which side of the issue someone was on. Continued... http://townhall.com/columnists/PaulDriessen/2009/11/28/cleaning_out_the_climate_science_cesspool