Sometimes the holiday season does come early. For the Green Grinches intent on stealing our freedom, along with a whole lot of our dough, a bevy of swiped email gifts being dubbed Climategate II released near midnight the 21st promise a different kind of Cyber Monday for the multi-billion dollar climate fraud industry.
Among the Who-pudding and roast beast is a feast of political-scientific incest exposing the lucrative business of warm-mongering. The examples are many, but a sit down with a cup of coffee and an eye to examining the political assumptions behind the climate “science” can be revelatory for even the non-specialist (like all of those lawyers and rights activists who participated in the first IPCC).
This shouldn’t be much of a surprise, considering that even an esteemed organization like the Union of Concerned Scientists (remember “nuclear winter,” anyone?), while commenting on the significance of the IPCC, blatantly confesses that politics is involved in much of the climate “science” being produced:
Therefore, governments—as the key stakeholders in these negotiations—play an essential role in the [AR4] report’s production. Government representatives propose authors and contributors, participate in the review process, and help reach a consensus on the report’s major findings. This can result (especially in the SPMs) in language that is sometimes weaker than it otherwise might be.
But it also means that governments cannot easily criticize or dismiss a report that they themselves have helped shape and approved during political negotiations. As Sir John Houghton, co-chair of TAR Working Group I, once put it: “Any move to reduce political involvement in the IPCC would weaken the panel and deprive it of its political clout [emphases mine]. . . . If governments were not involved, then the documents would be treated like any old scientific report. They would end up on the shelf or in the waste bin.
With that in mind, here are some of the faux-diamonds in an email treasure trove littered with glass:
any method that incorporates all forms of uncertainty and error will undoubtedly result in reconstructions with wider error bars than we currently have. These many [sic – probably “may”] be more honest, but may not be too helpful for model comparison attribution studies. We need to be careful with the wording I think.
Striking here is the use of the word “honest.” It’s not easy to dismiss the argument that the scientist knows he is being dishonest by excluding data that introduce more error, and thus more uncertainty, into the models. It is important to remember that he is communicating to colleagues in a presumed peer review process that is founded on honesty and transparency. Instead what we see is a tacit political motivation to make the model reconstructions appear more certain than he knows them to be.
A more explicitly political email:
I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.
So the government is interested in the “scientific” project because it is a “message that the Government [love the G capitalization – as in G-d] can give on climate change to help them tell their story”? Then the scientists are sensitive to how the government wants the story to be told? This is science? Whatever happened to using rigorous scientific methods to try to come to the truth about what is going on, to the extent that it is possible to be objective, as can be assessed through replication with the aim of falsification, and then letting politicians explain why the findings are significant? That would be too much like democratic deliberation though, I suppose, and we wouldn’t want any of that messy democracy to get in the way of the politicians’ and technocrats’ scheming to micro-manage every aspect of human life, would we?
And still more isolated emails:
<3066> Thorne: 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.
A bit of honesty for a change. That’s refreshing.
<2884> Wigley: 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 […]
Trouble in consensus paradise?
<4755> Overpeck: The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.
Now that is some rotten cherry-picking. And you would think the memo would have gotten around about using the word “trick.”
I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about “Subsequent evidence” […] Need to convince readers that there really has been an increase in knowledge – more evidence. What is it?
Lots of green bucks and no bang.
I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!
It’s hard to toe the grant party line sometimes.
<2775> Jones: I too don’t see why the schemes should be symmetrical. The temperature ones certainly will not as we’re choosing the periods to show warming.
<0813> Fox/Environment Agency: if we loose the chance to make climate change a reality to people in the regions we will have missed a major trick in REGIS.
Make it a reality? Climate changes on its own, and doesn’t need a PR firm to announce it. And there’s that’s “trick” word again.
<1485> Mann: the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing the PR battle. That’s what the site [Real Climate] is about.
Maybe we should have a Climate Science/Public Relations Double PhD. program set up so warmists can wear two hats at the same time?
I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global warming
Nothing says crisis like an amalgamous statement that “climate changes.” Just drop the “change” for the sake of eliminating redundancy, and let’s just say “climate.”
The truth is that man contributes a minuscule amount to the greenhouse effect, taking DOE figures and extrapolating out the basic math, we are talking about a .30% contribution. If you want to throw hundreds of billions of dollars, if not several trillions in the future, away on that feel free to contribute to that yourself. But if we are asking government to enforce policies based on this scam, then we are also trading away our economic liberty, and indeed, the management of our own lives away, just so that climate fraudsters can get rich and politicians can assume even more control over us.
To quote Carl Sagan:
“Apocalyptic predictions require, to be taken seriously, higher standards of evidence than do assertions on other matters where the stakes are not as great.”
It is high time for the manmade climate change “consensus” to start backing up its claims by providing more substantiated evidence to the public, which will be cross-examined by other scientists with a mind to getting to the truth of the matter, rather than simply ratifying the preferences of their political backers. Such would spell the end of the manmade climate change “crisis,” which in any event has been dragging on for decades now, with no discernible apocalypse in sight.