Climategate and the real conspiracy
February 1, 2010
I’m waiting for the really important story behind Climategate to emerge. It isn’t what has been reported so far, and it isn’t even primarily about the science and politics behind climate-change.
Oh, it’s clear enough that some of the evidence for climate change was cooked. But that doesn’t mean it was all cooked, and doesn’t mean that the phenomena we see around us isn’t happening. (My personal opinion is that climate has departed from its previous steady state and has not get settled into a new steady state, and so is temporarily chaotic.)
The story that screams out to be told is that “science” – that is, the scientific establishment — has been caught cooking the books.
It isn’t the first time! It isn’t a one-time thing. It isn’t limited to questions of climate. It has become standard operating procedure, because there’s too much money, prestige and power to be had.
Like corrupt church officials in the Middle Ages, today’s scientific priesthood too often does, not what is justified, but what is wanted by the real powers that be (whoever they may be).
You don’t believe it? Investigate the history of the systematic “scientific” debunking of UFOs, psychic abilities, alternative medicine, Orgone – anything inconvenient to the people who pay the guard-dogs.
The following is from an email list by James DeMeo, Ph.D., who learned all about scientific gang-warfare by watching the systematically dishonest behavior regarding Dr. Wilhelm Reich, who was hounded into prison half a century ago — and his machines destroyed — and his books ordered to be burned! — because the scientific establishment of the day decided that he was wrong.
And, beyond the question of the corruption of the scientific establishment, there is the related question of the corruption of the journalistic establishment. As DeMeo says, “Don’t be fooled … if you are not getting this info, it is well-past time to change your news sources for more reliable ones.”
Global warming science implodes overseas: American media silent
The revelations have been nothing short of jaw dropping. Dozens – yes dozens – of claims made in the IPCC 2007 report on climate change that was supposed to represent the “consensus” of 2500 of the world’s climate scientists have been shown to be bogus, or faulty, or not properly vetted, or simply pulled out of thin air.
We know this because newspapers in Great Britain are doing their job; vetting the 2007 report item by item, coming up with shocking news about global warming claims that formed the basis of argument by climate change advocates who were pressuring the US and western industrialized democracies to transfer trillions of dollars in wealth to the third world and cede sovereignty to the UN.
Glaciergate, tempgate, icegate, and now, disappearing Amazon forests not the result of warming, but of logging. And the report the IPCC based their bogus “science” on was written by a food safety advocate according to this Christopher Booker piece in the Telegraph :
Dr North next uncovered “Amazongate”. The IPCC made a prominent claim in its 2007 report, again citing the WWF as its authority, that climate change could endanger “up to 40 per cent” of the Amazon rainforest – as iconic to warmists as those Himalayan glaciers and polar bears. This WWF report, it turned out, was co-authored by Andy Rowell, an anti-smoking and food safety campaigner who has worked for WWF and Greenpeace, and contributed pieces to Britain’s two most committed environmentalist newspapers. Rowell and his co-author claimed their findings were based on an article in Nature. But the focus of that piece, it emerges, was not global warming at all but the effects of logging.
A Canadian analyst has identified more than 20 passages in the IPCC’s report which cite similarly non-peer-reviewed WWF or Greenpeace reports as their authority, and other researchers have been uncovering a host of similarly dubious claims and attributions all through the report. These range from groundless allegations about the increased frequency of “extreme weather events” such as hurricanes, droughts and heatwaves, to a headline claim that global warming would put billions of people at the mercy of water shortages – when the study cited as its authority indicated exactly the opposite, that rising temperatures could increase the supply of water.
This is a great story. It has everything a media outlet could desire; scandal, conflict of interest (IPCC head Pauchuri runs companies that benefited from climate scare stories), government cover ups – why then, has this unraveling of the basis of climate science that posited catastrophic man made warming not been making any news at all in the United States?
It’s too easy to simply claim “bias.” Media outlets don’t pass up juicy stories that could potentially increase their readership and revenue for ideological purposes (except the New York Times – and even they could spin all of this to show skeptics to be using flawed arguments like the liberal Guardian is doing in England).
Perhaps its time to ask why this story being revealed overseas with new revelations almost daily in the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Timesonline, and other Fleet Street publications can’t get any traction here. Blogs like Watts up with That and Climate Depot are keeping us informed of the latest from England but we hear crickets chirping when it comes to stories from major newspapers and – outside of Fox News – the cable nets.
As global warming the political movement is losing its scientific justification, the American people – who will be asked to foot the bill to the tune of trillions of dollars if Obama goes ahead with his “green” plans – are grossly uninformed about the state of the debate. Until the media starts to give this story the coverage it deserves, that state of affairs will not change.