Climate Cult

Wednesday, November 19, AD 2014

Princeton Professor of Physics William Happer has long been skeptical of the climate change movement, viewing it as largely a religious, I would say substitute religious, cult.  He set forth a summary of his views in an article in First Things in 2011:

There are many honest, hardworking climate scientists who are trying to understand the effects of CO2 on climate, but their work has fallen under suspicion because of the hockey-stick scandal and many other exaggerations about the dangers of increasing CO2. What has transformed climate science from a normal intellectual discipline to a matter of so much controversy?

A major problem has been the co-opting of climate science by politics, ambition, greed, and what seems to be a hereditary human need for a righteous cause. What better cause than saving the planet? Especially if one can get ample, secure funding at the same time? Huge amounts of money are available from governments and wealthy foundations for climate institutes and for climate-related research.

Funding for climate studies is second only to funding for biological sciences. Large academic empires, prizes, elections to honorary societies, fellowships, and other perquisites go to those researchers whose results may help “save the planet.” Every day we read about some real or contrived environmental or ecological effect “proven” to arise from global warming. The total of such claimed effects now runs in the hundreds, all the alleged result of an unexceptional century-long warming of less than 1 degree Celsius. Government subsidies, loan guarantees, and captive customers go to green companies. Carbon-tax revenues flow to governments. As the great Russian poet Pushkin said in his novella Dubrovsky , “If there happens to be a trough, there will be pigs.” Any doubt about apocalyptic climate scenarios could remove many troughs.

What about those who doubt the scientific basis of these claims, or who simply don’t like what is being done to the scientific method they were taught to apply and uphold? Publications of contrary research results in mainstream journals are rare. The occasional heretical article is the result of an inevitable, protracted battle with those who support the dogma and who have their hands on the scales of peer review. As mentioned above, we know from the Climategate emails that the team conspired to prevent contrary publications from seeing the light of day and even discussed getting rid of an editor who seemed to be inclined to admit such contentious material.

Skeptics’ motives are publicly impugned; denigrating names are used routinely in media reports and the blogosphere; and we now see attempts to use the same tactics that Big Brother applied to the skeptical hero, Winston Smith, in Orwell’s 1984 . In 2009 a conference of “ecopsychologists” was held at the University of West England to discuss the obvious psychological problems resident in those who do not adhere to the global warming dogma. The premise of these psychologists was that scientists and members of the general population who express objective doubt about the propagated view of global warming are suffering from a kind of mental illness. We know from the Soviet experience that a society can find it easy to consider dissidents to be mentally deranged and act accordingly.

Continue reading...

26 Responses to Climate Cult

  • There remains a month of Fall before Winter actually arrives. In merely 24 hours a Buffalo, NY suburb had dumped upon it six feet of snow. Why? Global Warmiing! Brilliant!!!

    We have lived through the dawn of the idiotocracy: And, scientific detachment and the free exchange of ideas are dead.

    Which product was more dishonestly marketed: Amazing Live Sea Monkeys or anthropomorphic global warming (AGW)?

    In the 1950’s, AGW was invented (it is “settled science”) and funded by nascent UK atomic energy special interests.

    Climate change and green/renewable energy programs have utterly failed everywhere. They helped to bankrupt Spain. Why repeat them here? Because there are huge opportunities (Solyndra comes to mind) for graft wherein the boondoggles are highly lucrative.

  • The Glacier Bay remark can not be debunked by the ruthless greenies.
    How could they? Have the greenies explained the expansion of ice in Antarctica?

    Al Gore would make a great villain in Batman! He could play the conniving money hungry “penguin.” Art imitating Life? 🙂

  • First of all, it is a dangerous experiment with unknown results to dump hundreds of millions of tons of fossil fuel pollutants into the atmosphere every year. Whether that causes warming or cooling or just more chaos in the weather remains to be seen. What we do know is that particulate pollution, SOx, NOx and COx all have deleterious health impacts on humans and animals alike (not to mention the nickel, cadmium, vanadium, selenium, mercury and other metal wastes that coal plants dump).
    Second, the doctrine of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is just another face to the same old pagan nature religions that existed millennia ago. It is the elevation and deification of the creature above the Creator exactly as St Paul wrote in his epistles. In fact, St Paul would be dismayed and dishearten to see how we have reverted back to what he fought against in the pagan Roman Empire.
    Third, the ONE thing that can avert the need to burn fossil fuels for energy – safe, clean energy from heavy metal fission – is opposed with great vehemence and invective by all these so-called nature lovers. Nuclear energy releases no particulate pollution and no SOx, NOx or COx, and the radioactivity that it does emit is < than that from radon in some people's houses, and far < than what equivalently rated coal fired power plants routinely dump to the environment in ash and sludge. Coal naturally contains uranium and thorium – these should be consumed in nuclear reactors instead of dumped into the environment willy nilly (but ironically, that's where they came from in the first place).
    Fourth, these so-called environmentalists, all so concerned with following what is best according to nature, demonstrate the greatest hypocrisy by going against what is natural in human sexuality and moral behavior. How can one say one loves nature but defy her laws in one's personal sexual behavior?
    Fifth, AGW is as religious and political a doctrine as Islam is religious and political. In the case of the former, its adherents refuse to listen to any counter arguments and denigrate anyone who thinks differently as being anti-science. Nothing could be further from the truth. The scientific evidence speaks for itself – walls of snow fall in Buffalo, NY and near 0 F temperatures in North and South Carolina in mid-November.

  • Philosophically, we can look at our use of fossil fuels as historically necessary to modern human development, in terms of population growth and the quality of life. Nuclear energy is indispensable to future human development and will be until the God-given intelligence with which we were created devises something better. Fossil fuels do produce particulate pollution but so do forest fires and volcanos. Kilauea, on the eastern side of Mauna Loa, has been in a state of eruption since 1983. Much of the State of Hawaii is adversely affected by almost continual Vog. Paul, have you an estimate of the worldwide ratio of natural to manmade particulate generation?

  • William Walsh is 100% correct.
    No electricity kills.
    Coal kills < no electricity.
    Oil kills < coal.
    Gas kills < oil.
    Solar and wind and hydro kill < gas
    Nuclear kills least of all.
    Having an option between no electricity and coal, I shall choose coal every time.
    To all those environmentalists out there typing on computers, 50% of the electricity for your computers comes from coal. You are hypocrites. Why? You pay for electricity that comes from the very fossil fuel you dread. You pay for hydrocarbon liquid fuel for your motor vehicle while you condemn with greatest invective Shell, Exxon-Mobil, BP, Chevron and the rest, not to mention Dick Cheney, George Bush and the wars in the Middle East that you say is for oil. it's oil you want because you pay for it! If you believed in what you say, then you would stop buying electricity from fossil fuel, and you would stop purchasing gasoline for your automobile. But you have no principle. You stand exposed.
    The right solution is this: level the regulatory playing field. No one gets to dump his garbage into the air, water or ground – neither fossil nor nuclear nor solar nor wind nor hydro. And no one gets govt money. And everyone is held accountable to the same regulations for ensuring public health and safety. Fracking for natural gas and burning of coal should get held to the same radiation protection standards as nukes. Guess what will happen? Coal and gas shutdown because they can't stop emitting. Solar and wind go out of business because at < 30% capacity factor they can't make electricity and stay in business without tax money. Hydro and nukes win. Just level the regulatory playing field and let the free market work. That's all. Be fair!
    One other thing – using nukes and the Fischer-Tropsch process, we can make all the hydrocarbon liquid fuel we need from coal. We should also help Canada to build the newest generation of Candu heavy water reactors whose steam heat can be used to obtain oil from the tar sands in Alberta, and we should buy it from them. After all, we are supposed to be friends. Then we can tell the Islamic jihadists to go drown in their mineral slime.

  • Natural gas (methane) ain’t going away. Fracking has led to much energy related employment in Pennsylvania – all this as the Obumbler Regime has sought to eliminate coal. Natural gas is a superior fuel to heat homes, cook food, dry clothes and power vehicles. Natural gas is also used in vast amounts in steelmaking and other industries.

    Between them all we can make ourselves energy independent and almost immediately.

    As for the enviornment – it wasn’t so long ago that people emptied their chamberpots in the streets. Horse drawn buggies left their excrement on streets and roads. Everybody heated their homes with wood. Water, air, food and people were ALL a lot dirtier not so long ago.

  • Penguins Fan is also correct: “Natural gas is a superior fuel to heat homes, cook food, dry clothes and power vehicles.”
    As such, it should NOT be used to generate electricity. It is too valuable of a resource to use in that manner. Use nuclear to generate electricity, supplemented by hydro. Use gas to provide residential and industrial heating. Use coal via nuclear steam heat and the Fischer-Tropsch process to produce liquid hydrocarbon fuels. Everybody wins! Except the environmentalists and the Islamic fanatics. My heart bleeds!

  • Here’s a very interesting blog post on the same subject by meteorologist Mike Smith, quoting at length a member of the British Labour Party who does NOT share the enthusiasm of his fellow liberals for the climate change “creed”:

  • The eco-nuts will not be happy until everyone is paying through the nose to breathe…and living in pup tents.

    Except for them, of course.

  • In Europe, the Hard Left, has always been sceptical of climate change.
    This, from the Tarnac 10 Anarchist group, is typical: “Without ecology, nothing would have enough authority to gag any and all objections to the exorbitant progress of control. Tracking, transparency, certification, eco-taxes, environmental excellence, and the policing of water, all give us an idea of the coming state of ecological emergency. Everything is permitted to a power structure that bases its authority in Nature, in health and in well-being.”

  • Volcanoes in Alaska, New Zealand, the Arctic and Hawaii are contributing to climate change. Taxing people for the planet’s convulsions is taxation without representation, especially since citizens in America have been prohibited from praying “deliver us from evil” in public. Some politicians may be afraid that prayer to God to “deliver us from evil” may result in removal from their public office.

  • What did liberals use before candles? Light bulbs.

  • Mary DeVoe’s comment regarding “deliver us from evil may result in removal from their public office,” is not too far from the truth!
    Good on ya.
    btw….physicians used to swear an oath.
    Can’t imagine why it ceased!!
    1973 was the beginning of the END.

  • Donald: When I attempt to follow a particular discussion, and perhaps respond to the latest comment, I find that whether I click on the latest link or the “see all” link, I am brought back to my initial post. This impedes conversation with others participating in a given thread. Am I doing something incorrectly or is there a need to exorcise some devilish glitch? Nonetheless, may I say to all interested in the “Climate Cult” problem, that I think it goes beyond even the obvious paradigm of “Green is the new Red”. It goes all the way to Idolatry, from worship of Deo to Gaia, from the Divine to the mundane, from Spirit to mere flesh, from Good to evil, and ultimately from Life to death. ~Bill

  • The tech aspects of this blog William are way beyond my tech competence. I will pass this along to the people who do take of such things for the blog.

  • The site has been acting weird for the past two weeks or so. Don’t know why but I have to refresh the comments to get new comments up. Sometimes I have to refresh the whole site to see new posts.

  • I just sent the tech comments off to our blog tech elves.

  • Thanks Donald. If my observation has been helpful, I’m happy to be of some small service.

  • Here in Prince George’s County, we have the gov’t trying to change church preaching to eco-fraudism:
    Sorry I couldn’t post sooner; after I heard it on WCBM Wednesday. It’s quite germane to this thread.

  • It is all about money, power, politics, & population control of the “little” people–mostly the money & control.

  • Churches are attended by parishioners who have paid their fair share of taxes as citizens. Non-profits are tax exempt because their people have already paid their share of taxes. To tax a church or non-profit is taxation without representation, two taxes, one vote. Taxing churches violates the First Amendment: “or prohibit the free FREE free exercise thereof.”

    Government accreditation, or licensing, monitoring or regulation of an entity described legally as a “legal person”, that is a corporation, does not allow the intrusion of an anti-ethical, anti-personal, anti private third party not legally affiliated with that legal person, that corporation. Government is not authentically authorized or empowered to impose demands of the person unless a crime has been committed. Any law passed after the corporation legally submitted to incorporation is “ex post facto” law criminalizing the normal acts of the corporation in existence.

    Our civilization is based on law that includes “power of attorney” and “proxy”. Our political system includes constituency, that is, representation by our elected officials. Nowhere in our legal system or civilization does the intrusion of others, others than ourselves, into our personal privacy, our countenance, our personal space, in public, as in corporations, or in private, as in bodily integrity, allowed, without the commission of assault and battery and/or trespassing. Our representatives in Washington D.C. are not empowered to violate an human being’s personal integrity.

    “Or prohibit the free exercise thereof.” “under God” remarkably reminds atheists that man has all unalienable rights infused into the human soul in whom atheists refuse to believe.

    Atheists must be tolerated. Atheism is patently unconstitutional.

    Thomas Jefferson said that the rights that the state gives, the state can take away. The absence of God is an “engine of tyranny”, Donald McClarey’s term for corrupt legislation.

  • Thank you, exNOAAman. I have just read the links and it has occurred to me that Obama means to revolt against and betray our Constitution by causing unrest and riot, the work of the devil.

  • exNOAAman: God wills it to rain or not. The “rain tax” is taxing an act of God and causing God to withhold the rain to prevent the unjust, evil tax. Will the government subsidize the Churches when there is a drought??? The devil always talks from his a$$. The atheist is subliminally admitting to the existence of God. ho ho ho.

  • Mary de Voe wrote, “Thomas Jefferson said that the rights that the state gives, the state can take away.”

    Indeed he did. “It enters into the resolution of the questions, whether the nation may change the descent of lands holden in tail; whether they may change the appropriation of lands given anciently to the church, to hospitals, colleges, orders of chivalry, and otherwise in perpetuity; whether they may abolish the charges and privileges attached on lands, including the whole catalogue, ecclesiastical and feudal; it goes to hereditary offices, authorities and jurisdictions, to hereditary orders, distinctions and appellations, to perpetual monopolies in commerce, the arts or sciences, with a long train of et ceteras”

    The rights the state gives and can take away are very extensive indeed.

  • Michael Paterson_Seymour
    Michael means “WHO IS LIKE UNTO GOD” El is the name of God. Your name, Michael, means: “the thought of God.” God’s thought. Very nice for you.
    Now, that government may ratify those freedoms and institutions that God gives to man does not make those freedoms and grants theirs. The government oversees their just stewardship. You and I, “We, the people…” are government and “We, the people,” must insure that our neighbor is not cheated, ruined, or suffer any undue hardship. People must insure the sovereignty of his neighbor, his dignity, his personhood… Read the “undue” and know that the neighbor must be innocent, and not breaking any just law.
    Lands and tithes are held in trust for our constitutional posterity, those souls to be brought into existence at God’s will, from our constitutional ancestors, those souls already in heaven. When “We, the people,” act, “We, the people”, must act for public domain and only public domain, that is, even the sacrifice of the loser benefits him. See our Fifth Amendment. Violations of our Fifth Amendment are unconstitutional.

Environmentalist Proponents Jump The Shark

Friday, October 1, AD 2010

An environmental confederation in the UK got the talented screenwriter Richard Curtis to produce a short film, ironically called No Pressure, for the 10:10 campaign, an effort to remind people to do their part in reducing carbon emission 10% by 2010 AD.

Unfortunately for the environmental movement the film backfired because it reinforced the image that beneath the surface environmentalists will do anything once in power to make it compulsory to follow their vision for the future, which includes violence.

Continue reading...

15 Responses to Environmentalist Proponents Jump The Shark

  • ++ Pretty hilarious. I was sure it was some kind of comedic jujitsu, an anti-enviro-mental send-up. It’s not available at 1010’s website which made me more suspicious. But Richard Curtis’ wikipedia entry says that he in fact did make the video in support of the group, but they had to take it down from their website because of outrage over its gory “no pressure” message.
    ++ Either way, great comedy always has an element of believability – you just know the enviro-mentals secretly wouldn’t mind the rest of us disappearing in a pink cloud of goo.

  • Thomas,

    I can’t believe it got past the writing stage!

    These guys live in a world of their own.

  • I cannot fathom how anyone with the 10:10 campaign could possibly have believed that this ad would have benefited their cause.

  • I was shocked that it was that bad…that’s unbelievable.

  • Maybe Curtis watched Monty Python’s “How Not To Be Seen” video a few times too many?

  • Elaine: The MP videos are very funny, but that is because they are not espousing any particular political viewpoint. So I (or anyone) can simply accept them as absurd.

    Showing children and employees and soccer players blown up because they do not subscribe to a particular political philosophy moves the 10:10 video into a universe of its’ own. The Python skit was a lark – this commercial descends into radical evil. The message is: “Conform or be killed.” Lovely. I have no problem imagining the teacher hectoring the students to believe in the importance of one child per couple (for the environment, dontcha know!). A couple of children object and are blown up.

    This illustrates liberal fascism better than Jonah Goldberg’s book does.

  • That’s horrifying. How could anyone but a psychopath find that funny?

    It’s worth a look though (for adults who have been forewarned) because I think it gives us a glimpse into the mind of the film’s producer and undoubtedly the minds of eco-fascists in general. They hate humanity.

  • You gotta admit that this is much more efficient than what the Nazis had going on. To these 10:10 people the real travesty of Auschwitz was its unspeakably huge carbon footprint.

  • You gotta admit that this is much more efficient than what the Nazis had going on.

    Yeah, the device used to blow up dissenters just magically knows who the naysayers are.

    To these 10:10 people the real travesty of Auschwitz was its unspeakably huge carbon footprint.

    Well, in all fairness, the Nazis did “recycle” hair, gold teeth, and skin. That should win them some points among the 10:10 crowd.

  • Pretty darn passive-aggressive, if you ask me.

  • I agree that 10:10 is infinitely more offensive and less funny than “How Not To Be Seen”. At least Monty Python had the good sense not to show their victims’ blood and vital organs splattering everywhere in graphic and stomach-churning fashion. However, I cannot help but wonder if the 10:10 creators weren’t, shall we say, “inspired” by Monty Python but took the premise way too far.

  • Remix time!

  • In the 21st century Environmentalism and radical Islam are what the Communists and Nazis were for the 20th century.

  • Pingback: Environmental Culture of Death « The American Catholic

Time Lapse Evidence Shows an Increase in Carbon Dioxide Does Not Harm Vegetation

Wednesday, May 12, AD 2010

[Updates at the bottom of this post.]

Atmospheric CO2 is not a pollutant.

And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth.  And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.  And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.  And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat:  And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.

–Book of Genesis 1:26-30

Continue reading...

27 Responses to Time Lapse Evidence Shows an Increase in Carbon Dioxide Does Not Harm Vegetation

  • Um, Tito … plants breathe carbon dioxide. They release oxygen into the atmosphere as a byproduct of photosynthesis.

    Some plants also love phosphates, and when Dow or some other company dumps them into a pond or a swamp, some species will love it. And crowd everything else off.

    The biblical command to dominion is a two-way street, and involves, unlike our corporate masters, a reciprocity of care and stewardship.

    Agreed the penguin and bear photos are silly. But I wasn’t aware you were a priest who wore a biretta. Who knew?

  • Not sure I understand the post. The AGW argument, right or wrong, is that increased quantities of CO2 will heat up the Earth’s atmosphere. What does the effect of CO2 (which plants absorb and process) on plants have to do with this?

  • Todd,

    Thanks for the 3rd grade science refresher.

    So tell me how a rise in CO2 levels will kill plants again?

  • John Henry,

    Your straw man is unproductive here JH.

  • Tito,

    Don’t think there was a straw man. I just don’t see what this post proves. What do you think the study proves?

  • John Henry,

    I’ll play along this one time only.

    Al Gore disciples are promoting Global Warming/Climate Change as a catastrophe of immense proportions, ie, destroying our environment.

    So this video disproves one of the many whacky theories that Global Warming/Climate Change alarmists are bandying about in order to increase the role of government in our lives.

    Which of course violates our free will.

    If you want to continue down this train of thought, then go ahead and post your own column and stop distracting from my post.

  • So this video disproves one of the many wacky theories that Global Warming/Climate Change alarmists are bandying about

    I’d never heard about this particular theory, I guess. The main line of argument is that CO2 emissions cause the atmosphere to heat up, which, over time, will raise sea levels and damage low-lying areas. And the concern is that this is a one-way ratchet; something we can’t undo. That all may be wrong, but that’s the argument I’d heard, rather than the claim that CO2 damages plants. As you’ve requested I stop commenting on this thread, I won’t comment any further.

  • Tito,

    I’m a little confused as to what the video is getting at.

    It’s certainly true that CO2 is great for plants, and that higher CO2 levels would mean more plant growth. In this sense, greater CO2 emission would be great for “the planet”. There have been periods when, for natural reasons, the planet has had much higher CO2 levels than we have now, and plants (among other things) were just fine. The claim of global warming advocates (or at least, those who don’t think that The Day After Tomorrow was a documentary), however, is not so much that “the planet” would be destroyed by more CO2, but that it would become very inconvenient for us, with oceans rising, weather patterns changing, etc. Since it’s hard to move large populations from where they are without a lot of suffering and death, it is pretty clearly true that if they are right in their predictions about the climate (which I think is open to question) the results would be bad for civilization, even though plans would very happily grow over the abandoned cities.

    I do share a certain annoyance with calling CO2 a “pollutant”, since it’s a perfectly natural gas which appears as part of our atmosphere. But then, “a weed” is simply a plant growing where you don’t want it to.

  • John Henry and Darwin,

    I’m at a loss of words of where you two are coming from.

    So you’re both telling me that global warming alarmists have never said that a rise in CO2 levels will destroy the environment?

    This whole time that rising ocean levels, plants dyeing, changing weather patterns, etc. is not what they’ve been saying?

  • John Henry and Darwin,

    I will admit that I failed to explain the sarcastic elements of my post, for that I’ll take the blame.

    By mocking them I sowed more confusion.

    And when I have to explain a post then I’ll be the first one to admit that the message wasn’t conveyed properly.

    With that thanks for being patient in explaining to me your confusion.


  • My recollection certainly is that the global warmist claim is that among the ill effects of increased CO2 concentration is deforestation and crop loss. (Gore famously Photoshopped a NASA photo of Earth to suggest this in one of his books.) The truth is, as the video demonstrates, increased CO2 levels enhance plant growth.

    But to me, the real lesson of the video should be the role of planetary vegetation in the dynamic control of O2 and CO2 levels, which global warmists totally ignore. As CO2 levels rise (and O2 proportionately declines), plants consume more CO2 and produce more O2, helping to restore balance.

    And not just any balance, but one perfectly suited to the need of humanity. Many of our global warmist friends think that’s just an accident.

  • “So you’re both telling me that global warming alarmists have never said that a rise in CO2 levels will destroy the environment?”

    Got it.

    I confess: I never read Al Gore’s book. I had a 200-level college course in climatology, and I follow the science on the issue, less the politics.

    More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases heat retention near the surface. Most climatologists are less worried today about rising sea levels–and that’s enough of a problem for obvious reasons–than the planet hitting a tipping point where climate will change rather quickly. The scenarios include a shift in the monsoon climates of South Asia, the Gulf Stream redirecting toward Africa because of increased freshwater melt in the North Atlantic.

    The environment will survive most anything we can throw at it. The survival question would be rioting hundreds of millions in India, SE Asia, and Indonesia. Or Europe getting Canada-style winters. Plant and animal life can and will adapt to change. Since you’re very concerned about the economics of it all, let me remind you that in the long haul, western economics and politics are very, very fragile compared to the long-term survival of the planet.

    By the way, I don’t know of any environmentalist that took those polar bear and penguin images any more seriously than as an icon. Sorry if others thought they were any more than that.

  • Pingback: What Do You Mean It Was Just A Symbol? « Catholic Sensibility
  • I am also familiar with the CO2 will destroy the environment and kill plants. Vaguely remember writing several replies about it four-five years ago.

  • Tom, Foxfier, et al.,

    Thanks, I’m sure I’m not the only one that read it that way as well!

  • Symbol,

    Fake but accurate?

  • Phillip,


    It’s amazing how we are accused of believing in myths, yet progressives and their Catholic enablers continue to propagate falsehoods.

  • Symbols to elicit an emotional connection?

    Of course they were; same way PETA use to put out those stupid comics like “Daddy tortures fish to death” and “mommy boils bunnies” or whatever.

    It’s admitted openly, now?

    (In defense of the lay folks that believed CO2 was killing plants, I do know that up by Mammoth Lake that’s happening– trees don’t like volcanic gas hitting their roots.)

    I personally really, really hope we’re causing global warming, since the reconstructed pattern of ice ages says we should be hitting one about now. Talk about a difficult change to adapt to!

  • “It’s amazing how we are accused of believing in myths, yet progressives and their Catholic enablers continue to propagate falsehoods.”

    It’s one thing to literally believe in a myth, and another to utilize mythology properly as either moral teaching or cultural rooting.

    The polar bear/penguin on an ice raft isn’t too much different from the Stupak poster Donald puts up now and then. It’s meant to elicit an emotional reaction from the base. It’s political PR. No more, no less.

    Some climate change deniers refuse to be swayed by either logic or emotion. They cling to their own views of and desire for a static world, in which nothing ever changes, and one’s environment never changes.

    Well, the universe doesn’t work that way. The planet’s climate is changing. Once that was denied. But even today we see that carbon dioxide levels are rising faster than plants can absorb it.

    If you’re interested in the serious science on climate change, there are places to go. If you want to keep it political, you’re also free to do that. But don’t complain that you’ve been left behind in the serious debate.

    Last word, gents: all yours.

  • Todd,
    You are wrong. The Stupak poster is obvious propaganda. The bear/penguin photos and videos are contrived to be deliberately misleading. Most people assume they are true and actual events captured on camera or video, and that is exactly what is intended. That is not comparable to the Stupak poster.

  • To be fair, the polar bear was actually captured, as I remember…it’s just usually used as evidence that polar bears are dying off, and they’re…um… not.

    Some climate change deniers refuse to be swayed by either logic or emotion. They cling to their own views of and desire for a static world, in which nothing ever changes, and one’s environment never changes.

    Now this is ironic, given that the folks who claim climate change is going on assume a static world is good (without evidence) and that the evidence for real climate change is somewhat shaky.

  • Todd,

    Here’s some pretty hard science with this conclusion:

    “Although carbon dioxide is capable of raising the Earth’s overall temperature, the IPCC’s predictions of catastrophic temperature increases produced by carbon dioxide have been challenged by many scientists. In particular, the importance of water vapor is frequently overlooked by environmental activists and by the media. The above discussion shows that the large temperature increases predicted by many computer models are unphysical and inconsistent with results obtained by basic measurements. Skepticism is warranted when considering computer-generated projections of global warming that cannot even predict existing observations.”

    Full link here:

    Now people can and do discuss the merits of this article. Bottom line though, reasonable people do disagree.

  • “The polar bear/penguin on an ice raft isn’t too much different from the Stupak poster Donald puts up now and then. It’s meant to elicit an emotional reaction from the base. It’s political PR. No more, no less.”

    Actually Todd it’s giving Stupak the benefit of the doubt, by assuming that he actually believed that the meaningless executive order that he got from Obama meant anything. I could put up a poster of Stupak saying “Liar”, but I never like going beyond the evidence before me.

  • Todd and everyone else,

    The polar bears are actually having a population boom that they are now moving into areas that have never seen polar bears in centuries and interbreeding with grizzly bears.

    As one polar bear biologist was quoted as saying, “There aren’t just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears,”

  • Stupid bears! They don’t know they’re supposed to be dying.

  • “polar bears in centuries and interbreeding with grizzly bears”

    Time for a mind scrub to erase that particular image!

  • Echo Phillip

    More CO2 means more heat potentially (not that mankind is doing all that much), means more evaporation/transpiration (which reduces the heat energy of the ocean/land/plant by kcal/g water and reduces the water level but we get more rainfall and snowfall which returns water to the lands and oceans and ice to the poles), means better plant growth which converts CO2 into Carbon compounds (wood, stem, leaf, fruit, nuts, food, wheat, corn) which reduces CO2 in atmosphere and increases O2. So we’re going to get woozy from all the higher O2! And need more kids to eat all this food!

    Entropy is positive – AHHHHH!

    So God had a plan – and earth’s ecosystem isn’t so man-dependent as our narcissistics want to believe. Do you really think He would trust earth to our free will? We’re weak idiots. I have dominion over my children and wife – as long as I concur with practically everything they do! And Thank God for the 4th Commandment to help me with that family dominion think too. As God Designed.

Climate Gate Complete Database

Tuesday, December 1, AD 2009

Pajamas Media has put together a complete database for the Climategate documents here.  The docs make for fascinating reading.  On a whim I did a search using the term Hitler.  The e-mail that came up is from February 21, 2005:

“From: Phil Jones <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
Cc: “raymond s. bradley” , “Malcolm Hughes”

“Mike, Ray and Malcolm, The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here !

Maybe we can use this to our advantage to get the series updated !

Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere rather than surface data !

Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg et al used the Jones and Moberg updated series!

Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks.

He stressed that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn’t bother with that.

Also ignored Francis’ comment about all the other series looking similar to MBH.

The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.

Leave it to you to delete as appropriate!


PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act

Italics added by me.  It seems that the reluctance to release supporting data by these scientists has been going on for years.  These documents give us an astonishing look inside a group that has been spearheading the global warming movement.

Continue reading...

17 Responses to Climate Gate Complete Database

  • Ugh! That’s abysmal science if you make your supporting information difficult/impossible for others to see. I am a scientist (chemist) and have found that the quality of the research seems to correlate with the quality of the reported supporting information. Articles that do not provide an SI section are not to be trusted…

  • Folks, it’s worse than what’s in the e-mails.

    I’m a software coder, and let me tell you, it’s their modeling software and the data upon which it depends — the duo that’s supposed to produce the results they published to the world — which is the bigger scandal.

    The data is largely missing, and the parts that are present are largely unintelligible.

    The software is largely non-functional, and the parts that work, when executed against any of the few data sets that are both extant and usable, don’t produce the same conclusions as the original “peer-reviewed” conclusions previously published.

    Let me say that again, so it’s crystal-clear.

    Some of the data is missing; a large amount of what’s left isn’t meaningful or intelligible.

    Of the remaining data that [i]can[/i] be fed into the software models used to produce the original results and to justify the original conclusions, [i]when[/i] it is fed into the software models, they often fail to run, collapsing with error messages or producing meaningless output.

    And when they [i]do[/i] run, they don’t reproduce the original results.

    This is NOT a situation of Research Group X conducting research and publishing conclusions based on certain results, and Research Group Y conducting research the same way but not being able to reproduce the same results, and thus support X’s conclusions.

    No, this is a situation of Group X conducting research behind a wall where they don’t let anyone see quite what they’re doing, with data that they don’t share with anyone except by vague description, using modeling software they don’t let anyone review.

    They then publish a set of results, announce their conclusions on the basis of those results, make policy recommendations on the basis of those conclusions, call the whole thing “settled science,” and label anyone who expresses skepticism as the moral equivalent of a holocaust denier, and do their best to destroy their academic reputations and deny them access to influential journals and groups.

    And when Group Y manages to get access to their original data and software, not only can Group Y not replicate the results…but they find a paper trail of e-mails and software-development comments and notes which indicate that, for years now, Group X [i]couldn’t replicate their own results, either![/i]

    It’s not just other folks who can’t confirm the findings that support Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    Its that the folks whose work makes up the bulk and core of the evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming can’t replicate their [i]own[/i] results a second time, because their [i]own[/i] data is missing or unusable, and their [i]own[/i] software doesn’t actually run.

    It doesn’t actually run.

    Which makes you kinda wonder whether it [i]ever[/i] ran, doesn’t it?

    And if it did run, it might not matter: A lot of the data has gone missing. Makes you wonder what was in the missing data, doesn’t it?

    People talk about Piltdown Man as the scientific scandal that rocked the world. Piltdown Man was smaller than this: One hoaxer and a lot of credulous folk who wanted to believe.

    [i]This[/i] is a [i]larger[/i] scandal: A too-trusting scientific community relying on an inner ring of a few dozen climate research insiders, marching in lockstep banality like Good Germans, collectively steering the world towards increased poverty for little reason other than to maintain their own consensual delusion of certainty long after they should have come to their senses and realized their climate predictions amounted to little more than unprovable hunches.

    Thank God for Information Freedom, the hackers, and the unnamed Deep Throats who probably helped the hackers get this stuff out.

    Don’t tell Al Gore: His worldview just died, and it was his “invention,” the Internet, which killed it. (He’ll probably have to gain a lot of weight and grow a beard again. Perhaps he’ll show up in a hot tub with the Nobel Committee?)

    Ding dong, the hoax is dead.

  • (Aw, fiddlesticks. That was a good post, and here I ruined it by doing the italics all wrong.)

  • R.C.

    Still a great post!

  • Exactly, RC. Another good post on Climategate from a medicinal chemist’s point of view can be found here and here.

  • Sorry – the second link is from Clive Crook, an editor at The Atlantic Monthly.

  • Looks like the Aussie parliament is not going to get an ETS for Kevin Rudd to present to Copenhagen. The Lib/Nat. party coalition, in opposition , has had a leadership spill, and the new leader of the opposition is pulling out all sorts of exposees to discredit AGW, which may well sink the Aussie ETS.

    The MSM down here is no better – all falling into line behind AGW, and not reporting all the data that conflicts with the AGW world view.

    I still think has the goods with their petition project – at least their data is produced in an understandable way, and makes sense to this layman, and other, I’m sure.

  • Don, I have seen some rejoicing on Aussie conservative blogs over the new leader, Tony Abbott. I was interested to see that the man is a pro-life practicing Catholic and that as such, is “a hate figure for feminists and militant secularists.” Hmmmm, that sure sounds familiar. I confess, it sounds like Abbott has all the right enemies.

    I realize that Oz is not your country, but do you know much about the new Liberal Party leader? (It seems odd to type that, since “liberal,” of course, has the exact opposite meaning here in the States.)

  • Another guy whose onto all this is Ian Wishart, and his site breifingroom.typepad,com. He wrote a book recently called “Air Con”, debunking much of AGW. I understand its a good read, although I haven’t bought it yet.

  • Hi Donna.
    No I don’t know a lot about him other than what you mention – he was a member of the last Lib/Nat govt. under John Howard.
    Its interesting that the NZ National Party – tending to be centre right and conservative, started in the late 1800’s as the NZ Liberal Party.
    I think “Liberal” may have morphed over time, but I’m not really sure.

  • Also, the student newspaper at Penn State has reported that Mann, he of the Hockey Stick graph, is now under investigation by the university. Telling, isn’t it, that this news is brought to us by the student paper and not say, the NY Times. The Times crack reporters must be busy elsewhere – fact-checking Palin’s book for errors, interviewing Levi Johnson, etc.

    Although I suspect the university investigation will be less than thorough, I can’t help wondering:
    Will Penn State’s Mann end up in the state pen?


  • “Its interesting that the NZ National Party – tending to be centre right and conservative, started in the late 1800’s as the NZ Liberal Party.
    I think “Liberal” may have morphed over time, but I’m not really sure.”

    You are correct Don! Nineteenth century liberals are now Twenty-first century conservatives, while Twenty-first century liberals are often socialists and, usually, social libertarians, if not libertines.

  • “Will Penn State’s Mann end up in the state pen?”

    Ha! Some of those e-mails, especially those exchanging tips on how to foil Freedom of Information requests, could serve as the basis for a prosecution on criminal conspiracy. I don’t expect such prosecutions to be undertaken, but an enterprising prosecutor would have more than enough there to have search warrants issued.

  • Well its happened.
    Tony Abbott, now leader of the Lib/Nat coalition in opposition in the Australian Federal Govt, having changed the party policy on an ETS for Oz, have successfully torpedoed the Labour govt. proposed ETS. Kevin Rudd has nothing to rake to Copenhagen.

    The NZ National Govt. amended an ETS passed by the Labour Govt. in 2008 to make it less drastic, to take to Copenhagen, but there is still much opposition to it here, particularly in view of the recent revelations. I think, however, the govt. is really more interested in protecting our trade and tourism, and the ETS may well turn out to be a damp squib. Certainly, much of the AGW “evidence” is being debunked more and more.

  • Further, Kevin Rudd will probably call a snap election in the next month or so, with an ETS being a prime election issue.

    That’ll be interesting, particularly the way the Aussies get really down and dirty in a situation like this.

    I’m salivating at the thought 😉

  • I will watch those election results with keen interest Don.

Junk Science Part II

Wednesday, November 25, AD 2009

A follow up to my initial post here on what is becoming known as Climategate.  Now news comes from New Zealand about massaging of data by global warming proponents.

The New Zealand Government’s chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn’t there.

The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre.

In New Zealand’s case, the figures published on NIWA’s [the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research] website suggest a strong warming trend in New Zealand over the past century.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Junk Science Part II

  • Jim Salinger was fired from NIWA earlier this year, but the reason never came out into the public domain. Now the reason is obvious.
    The revised data seems to show similar data to the graphs I have seen on , in refutation of the AGW scenario.
    Locally, we have just had the coldest October since 1945. Winter last year was the coldest since 1973 – this winter just gone was colder – we had more snow on the Southern Alps than before – some say the most in living memory. The Cabbage trees are flowering about a month early – nature’s indication of a warm dry summer.
    Is this a proof of AGW?
    Nope – I recall in my lifetime this happening fairly regularly. I think this summer will be cooler than those in the 60’s when I was a callow youth – those lazy hazy days of summer were warmer then, and again warmer in the 90’s. Recent summers are cooler than previous.
    Maybe our bro’s across the Tasman in Australia would disagree – they are heading for one of the worst bush fire seasons in quite some time; will be interesting to see what the AGW pundits make of it.

  • I think around the world Don science bloggers are going to be checking data that has been amassed by global warming advocates. This whole thing is beginning to stink of group think and outright fraud.

  • Thanks Rick.

    Actually we do get large iceburgs floating past the bottom of the South island fairly regularly, some come part way up the east coast of the South Island not far from Dunedin and Christchurch, and tourist operators offer helicopter flights to them – they land on those that are stable and flat enough.
    But we’ve had a pretty wet winter as well as a cold one – so the Aussies should send out a ship and lassoe this ‘burg because they’ve has a fairly dry winter – they could do with the water.
    Both the NZ and the Oz governments have been focussing on pushing through Emission Trading Schemes over the past few days, in time for the Copenhagen conference – just so they can wave and say “look at me, look at me” for doing something about CC. What I want to know is, all the extra taxes (carbon) that are going to be levied, where does the money go? Our ex PM, Helen Clark, who is now in charge of the UN Development Fund is going to give all our hard earned dollors to “third worls countries” like China and India – that’s where the money goes. Clark “bought” her job with the UN by donating millions to the UNDF while she was PM, thus giving her a shoe in for the job.
    Its all part of a Marxist plot (Helen was a Labour -read marxist/left wing politicion, and radical feminist to boot) – wait and see. Don’t have time right now to expand – will later if I can.

  • > he claims NIWA has a good explanation for adjusting the temperature data upward. Wratt says NIWA is drafting a media response for release later this afternoon which will explain why they altered the raw data.

    In a reliable scientific study, such adjustments would be documented, explained, and justified as part of the methodology. It would be in the original publication.

    To say ‘we have good reasons for this, which we did not disclose before, but don’t worry, we will come up with an explanation’ means one thing: they got caught.

  • Hopefully this will be one more step towards scuttling plans to hamper the private sector with ever-increasing regulation… could we see both cap-and-trade and ObamaCare die in the Senate?

Thoughts on 'Climategate'

Tuesday, November 24, AD 2009

I think Prof. Ilya Somin at the Volokh Conspiracy outlines a sensible approach to the recent ‘Climategate’ scandal:

Most of us, however, lack expertise on climate issues. And our knowledge of complex issues we don’t have personal expertise on is largely based on social validation. For example, I think that Einsteinian physics is generally more correct than Newtonian physics, even though I know very little about either. Why? Because that’s the overwhelming consensus of professional physicists, and I have no reason to believe that their conclusions should be discounted as biased or otherwise driven by considerations other than truth-seeking. My views of climate science were (and are) based on similar considerations. I thought that global warming was probably a genuine and serious problem because that is what the overwhelming majority of relevant scientists seem to believe, and I generally didn’t doubt their objectivity.

At the very least, the Climategate revelations should weaken our confidence in the above conclusion. At least some of the prominent scholars in the field seem driven at least in part by ideology, and willing to use intimidation to keep contrarian views from being published, even if the articles in question meet normal peer review standards. Absent such tactics, it’s possible that more contrarian research would be published in professional journals and the consensus in the field would be less firm. To be completely clear, I don’t think that either ideological motivation or even intimidation tactics prove that these scientists’ views are wrong. Their research should be assessed on its own merits, irrespective of their motivations for conducting it. However, these things should affect the degree to which we defer to their conclusions merely based on their authority as disinterested experts.

Continue reading...

19 Responses to Thoughts on 'Climategate'

  • “We would need a lot more evidence than this to reasonably dismiss the scientific consensus on climate change.”

    I guess we need quite a few more whistleblowers. I imagine that there has been a mass culling of e-mails among many of the proponents of global warming since this story broke. The scientists involved in climategate are pretty big names among climatologists and I doubt if their attitudes and methods are sui generis.

  • A sensible approach indeed.

  • Yes, reasonable. But I think there’s still more reason for concern. It would take very little incorrect (intentionally) data by a handful of these agenda driven scientists to corrupt the entire body of research. Much like a simple math error early on gets built upon and with every additional operation you get further from the correct answer.

    If the discussion was confined to scientific inquiry and understanding, I don’t think many lay people would be concerned about it. It becomes problematic when it’s used as a political weapon by some in an attempt effect broad and inorganic change of the social order – that which they have tried and failed to can’t achieve based on the merit.

  • Iowahawk never lacks for material these days.

    Rich L. pinpoints the problem – it’s one thing to believe that we should be good stewards of the earth and quite another to attempt to transform the entire social order. What disturbs me about the whole AGW thing is that some of its more fanatical adherents have substituted Gaia for God. Several months ago, I read of couples in the UK who bragged about having themselves sterilized to ensure they wouldn’t add any nasty little polluters to the population. At its extreme end, environmentalism strikes me as deeply anti-human. (I was going to say ‘pagan’ but the ancient pagans had fertility rites!)

  • As Blackadder noted recently, mainstream conservatism has increasingly been associated with views that can be described as ‘anti-science’ in recent years.

    You can describe them that way, but the concept is underdeveloped.

  • If any scientist “manipulates” their data their credentials should be revoked. Period.

    This situation should be thoroughly investigated. There should be “zero tolerance” for such behavior. Of what value is “peer review” when those who are “objective” are among the corrupt? I wonder how “objective” any investigation will be anyway?

    With the strong political/social attachments of many scientists, being at the behest of different organizations, inside and outside government to fund their “research”, is this actually surprising?

    Are there still people who really think that honesty is a driving force in society that means more than the bottom line? You are naive.

    There is ALWAYS some end, which is NOT synonymous with the pursuit of truth, operative in all endeavors. This indictment includes the Catholic Church as well. Corruption is everywhere.

    When intelligent whistleblowers, with significant experience in what they are trying to expose, are ignored and suppressed out of hand because what they are saying could severely impact the “status quo”, this is what you get. People get what they deserve.
    The “complainer” is sometimes correct.

  • Apparently the scientists involved in climategate were using a very poorly coded computer program as part of their efforts to measure global warming.

    The bottom line:

    “Inappropriate programming language usage.
    Totally nuts shell tricks.
    Hard coded constant files.
    Incoherent file naming conventions.
    Use of program library subroutines that appear to be
    far from ideal in how they do things when they work,
    do not produce an answer consistent with other way to calculate the same thing, but which fail at undefined times, and where when the function fails the program silently continues without reporting the error.

  • I am one of those sceptics because of how they sell Global Warming. They sell it like it is a pathology which is in the field of medince. Biomedical studies is a science, it increases the body of knowledge. What does it prove when in the Artic when a huge chunck of ice falls into the ocean. They measure the CO2 in the ice or in immissions and determine it is causing it. Pathology uses words like suffering, wound, unrepairable, but in cell pathology as I understand you always take into consideration the word healing

  • Part of the problem with the scientists involved as I understand it, is that they would not provide their data when requested and even talked about deleting it. Professionally unethical and very, very, very suspect.

  • Such has happenen in medical publications before. The journels which published the studies retracted the articles and published the reasons why. Similar should happen now if the scientists cannot present their data for independent review.

  • Let me see if I have this straight: We have some folks in the scientific community acting in an unscientific manner in furtherance of a particular agenda, and yet it is the skeptics of that agenda who, once again, are dismissed as “anti science”. The whole “I’m shocked that people continue to think in this ‘anti-scientific’ way” meme is wearing thin.

    In fact, I’m shocked that any rational person – other than those (1) pushing a particular socio-political agenda for which “global warming” proves to be a particularly convenient bogeyman or (2) pretending to be “more rational than thou” in order to impress somebody – continues to unquestioningly buy into the “science” of so-called “global warming”.

  • I was intentionally provocative with that previous post. As offensive as it may be to be accused of buying into global warming in order to either push an agenda or impress someone, it is far more offensive to skeptics of “global warming” to be accused of being “anti science”.

  • Jay,

    I don’t really think the ‘who’s insulted more’ argument is worth having. If you think that CO2 emissions are not a long-term problem (contra the scientific consensus), that’s your call, although I’m disinclined to rely on your expertise in this area. As I see it, there are three basic questions around climate change:

    1) Are CO2 emissions a long term threat to the environment? My understanding is that there is a lot of evidence suggesting they are.

    2) Can we develop models that allow us to predict with some specificity – beyond the insight that they can be a serious long term problem – how CO2 emissions interact with the environment and will affect it in the future? I think the Climategate e-mails suggest we are not as far along on this as many previously thought; at the very least, there are reasons to be skeptical.

    3) Given that CO2 emissions are a threat, what is the appropriate political response? On this question I basically side with Jim Manzi, who accepts the scientific consensus that CO2 emissions are a problem, but thinks that they are a manageable risk, which we will be able to more effectively address through technological advances and economic growth, rather than through draconian and ineffective political half-measures.

    If you have a problem with the standard views in the global warming community to questions 2 & 3, then we’re in basic agreement, although I may be somewhat less skeptical than you about question 2. If you have a problem with question 1, then I think you’re venturing into ‘anti-science’ territory – and I think this could be a real problem for conservatives at some point. As the post indicates, I don’t pretend to be an expert in this area. I think Prof. Somin outlines a reasonable way for non-experts to approach Climategate. Feel free to disagree, but I don’t think speculating about my motives does much to advance the conversation.

  • Brought to you by Climategate:

    a) data manipulation
    b) subversion of the peer review process
    c) intimidation of science journal editors
    d) persecution of skeptics
    e) revelations of a non-consensus internal to CRU models and data
    f) communications through an unelected UN panel stacked and hand-picked by CRU members
    g) millions of dollars of grant money at stake
    h) destruction of data
    i) obstruction of the freedom of information act
    j) unprofessional conduct

    I can not support the largest wealth transfer in human history based on a science so full of arrogance and pettiness. The probability of error in this group appear extreme as demonstrated by the collective conduct. Rationality has not been their primary behavior.

    John Q. Public

  • Time is getting short and it is coming down to the fact, that soon ( December 7 to December 18 ) I will have to pray to my Lord, to maintain our freedoms and that God, not allow our leaders to sign the Copenhagen Treaty, which will take away our liberties, let go and let God-this being a challenge to our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ? However, while there is still time to prevent the loss of a lifetime, perhaps loss of life it’s self – I will do what I am able to fight for our freedoms! The whole Climate Change agenda is a proven fraud and racketeering, but the United Nations and Globalist governments don’t care as that is just the excuse instrument they have used to ensnare us! Has everybody out there become a tree hugger? Anyone out there want to fight and maintain their freedom anymore? Please do all you can to preserve freedom in North America!
    Check out what Government is doing behind your back at: :

    To request that PM Harper doesn’t sign the Copenhagen Treaty, thereby causing Canadians to lose their Sovereignty and Freedom email the PM at: [email protected]

    Any lawyers want to help out by filing this Copenhagen Treaty be classified as an illegal Treaty to help save Freedom in North America? ( Unlimited Promotion Opportunity Here For a Law firm to Gain a favorable high profile credibility! )

  • “Climategate” started out when there appeared on the Internet a collection of e-mails of a group of climatologists who work in the University of East Anglia in England. These documents reveal that some climatologists of international preeminence have manipulated the data of their investigations and have strongly tried to discredit climatologists who are not convinced that the increasing quantities of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are the cause of global warming.

    It is true that a majority of the scientists who study climatic tendencies in our atmosphere have arrived at the conclusion that the world’s climate is changing, and they have convinced a group of politicians, some of whom are politically powerful, of the truth of their conclusions.

    A minority, however, is skeptical. Some believe that recent data that suggest that the average temperature of the atmosphere is going up can be explained by natural variations in solar radiation and that global warming is a temporary phenomenon. Others believe that the historical evidence indicating that the temperature of the atmosphere is going up at a dangerous rate is simply not reliable.

    Such lacks of agreement are common in the sciences. They are reduced and eventually eliminated with the accumulation of new evidence and of more refined theories or even by completely new ones. Such debates can persist for a period of decades. Academics often throw invective at one another in these debates. But typically this does not mean much.

    But the case of climate change is different. If the evidence indicates that global warming is progressive, is caused principally by our industrial processes, and will probably cause disastrous changes in our atmosphere before the end of the twenty-first century, then we do not have the time to verify precisely if this evidence is reliable. Such a process would be a question of many years of new investigations. And if the alarmist climatologists are right, such a delay would be tragic for all humanity.

    The difficulty is that economic and climatologic systems are very complicated. They are not like celestial mechanics, which involves only the interaction of gravity and centrifugal force, and efforts to construct computerized models to describe these complicated systems simply cannot include all the factors that are influential in the evolution of these complicated systems.

    All this does not necessarily indicate that the alarmist climatologists are not right. But it really means that if global warming is occurring, we cannot know exactly what will be the average temperature of our atmosphere in the year 2100 and what will be the average sea level of the world’s ocean in that year.

    It also means that we cannot be confident that efforts by the industrialized countries to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will have a significant influence on the evolution of the world’s climate.

    Alas, the reduction of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would be very costly and would greatly change the lives of all the inhabitants of our planet–with the possibility (perhaps even the probability!) that all these efforts will be completely useless.

    Harleigh Kyson Jr.

  • Pingback: Will Climategate Lead to Soul Searching among Religious Environmentalists? « The Enterprise Blog