The debate regarding global warming and whether it is man-made, a natural phenomenon or something in between is heating up dramatically in advance of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, which begins December 7, 2009 and will run through December 18, 2009. You would have to practically be living under a rock not to know that prominent global warming scientific advocates (I refuse to call them scientists or researchers) are being investigated for manipulating data, hiding the truth and otherwise attempting to fraudulently bolster their preference that global warming is being caused by man so we need strict new international agreements that will destroy our economy in order to save the planet. Yes, you would need to live under a rock indeed, at least today. Most of the major media outlets, other than Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, who has hit the story very hard (see for example this, this, this and this) have largely ignored the story except to make excuses. But now Jon Stewart, the liberal comedian who hosts the enormously popular The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on Comedy Central has lashed out at the intellectually dishonest scientific advocates. I personally don’t agree with Stewart much, but I do find him quite funny. There is, however, no denying the truth that when the liberals lose Jon Stewart things have turned severely bad for their cause. Thankfully, while a liberal Stewart seems to have a strong sense of right and wrong, and apparently hates hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty and self serving manipulation as much as I do.
Before going any further allow me to explain why this is an issue I keep writing about. First and foremost, one of the key platform items in the climate change negotiations between and among the international community has been the focus on sharing intellectual property so as to allow developing and undeveloped countries to curb carbon emissions and otherwise be environmentally friendly. Of course “sharing” is code for permanently borrowing without remuneration (i.e., stealing) and “intellectual property” is code for innovation (i.e., patents). So the collective wisdom of much of the international community seems to be that individuals and businesses that have devoted substantial amounts of time, money and energy to develop new and unique innovations should simply donate those to the cause for free. As if that would encourage any further advances or the march of innovation in the future! Simply put, a terribly bad idea even if global warming were real. It is nearly criminal given that so much of this all now seems to be a hoax.
I am also troubled by the climate change negotiations because science is being completely ignored, which is something I have known for years because even with fraudulent and manipulated data there already existed a lot of key pieces of factual and historic information that just didn’t jive with the proffered global warming theory. Then they change global warming to “climate change” and I knew there had to be a reason, and apparently that reason is because the globe is no longer warming, but rather is cooling. So I have a big problem when science becomes intertwined with politics. That was not a good thing when it happened to Galileo (who was right by the way) and it wasn’t a good thing when President Bush stalled scientific research into stem cells due to his religious beliefs. I understand the concern over stem cell research, but how can we sit back and not explore every avenue to help people who have such crippling ailments as Alzheimer’s Disease and Parkinson’s Disease?
I strongly recommend that everyone take a few moments to watch Jon Stewart’s rant below. The global warming part starts at approximately 2:30, and lasts for just over 2 minutes.
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart||Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c|
|Scientists Hide Global Warming Data|
After making fun of Al Gore’s global warming being debunked by his very own invention, the Internet, Stewart proceeds to say lets just look at the raw data, only to discover that the raw data has been deleted and is no longer available. Talk about suspicious, huh? Then he concludes by saying:
If you care about an issue and want to make it your life’s work, don’t cut corners! its disheartening for people inclined toward the scientific method and its cat nip to these guys who are going to end up celebrating tonight drunk, roaming the Artic circle trying to BLANK BLANK polar bears, which are quickly disappearing because of rising oceans, caused now apparently by [dramatic pause] God’s tears.
Even Jon Stewart knows this global warming stuff does not bode well for the climate change movement, but apparently John Holdren, President Obama’s Science Czar, doesn’t quite understand the reality of the situation. In testimony before Congress yesterday he clung to the man-made global warming myth explaining:
It is well established that climate is changing in the United States and all across the globe. The air and the oceans are warming, mountain glaciers are disappearing, sea ice is shrinking, permafrost is thawing, the great land ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica are losing mass, and sea level is rising. We know the primary cause of these changes beyond any reasonable doubt. It is the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping pollutants from our factories, our buildings, our vehicles, and our power plants; from farming, cement manufacture, and waste disposal; and from deforestation and other forms of land-use change that move carbon out of soils and vegetation and into the atmosphere.
I want to emphasize that in my judgment and that of the vast majority of other scientists who have seriously studied this matter, the current state of knowledge about it (even though incomplete, as science always is) is sufficient to make clear that failure to act promptly to reduce global emissions to the atmosphere of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping substances is overwhelmingly likely to lead to changes in climate too extreme and too damaging to be adequately addressed by any adaptation measures that can be foreseen.
I wonder whether those science advocates who fraudulently manipulated data so it would match their predetermined political beliefs are the ones who “have seriously studied this matter”? Besides being condescending, Holdren seems to be doing his best to play the part of a Monty Python character. For crying out loud it is NOT a flesh wound, your arm is missing! Mr. Holdren, de Nile is not just a river you know!
The e-mails liberated (either by hacking or some intentional internal disclosure) from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) are all over the Internet and pretty clearly show there was a concerted manipulation of data and a cover-up by those who supposedly “seriously studied this matter.” I won’t go through all of the damning evidence, but a couple really drive home the essential points. These are:
Kevin Trenberth, Climate Scientist
“The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
From Phil Jones, the now disgraced head of the CRU who has temporarily stepped aside pending a University investigation, and Penn State University climate scientist Michael Mann, who is also being investigated by PSU:
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
On top of this, as we approach the UN submit in Copenhagen more and more researchers and scientists are openly questioning the science of man-made global warming. With the revelations of fraudulent and manipulated data this should only increase. I have previously cited to a number of scientists, but I will add another skeptic to that growing list. Professor Emeritus Don J. Easterbrook at Western Washington University recently published an article titled Global Cooling is Here: Evidence for Predicting Global Cooling for the Next Three Decades. In this article he explains:
- There has been no global warming in 10 years and there was recording setting cold in 2007-2008.
- “Climatic fluctuations over the past several hundred years suggest ~30 year climatic cycles of global warming and cooling (Figure 3) on a generally rising trend from the Little Ice Age about 500 years ago.”
- The IPCC prediction of global temperatures, 1° F warmer by 2011 and 2° F by 2038 (Fig. 1), stand little chance of being correct. NASA’s imagery showing that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has shifted to its cool phase is right on schedule as predicted by past climate and PDO changes (Easterbrook, 2001, 2006, 2007).
There is no consensus on global warming even absent fraudulent, manipulated and self-serving data. There is evidence that cuts both ways, but now that Michael Mann’s data is being questioned and potentially fraudulent, one must start to question whether the evidence against man-made global warming is not superior.
For crying out loud, we cannot predict the weather for next week with a high degree of certainty, and trying to predict what it will be two weeks out is pure guess work. We can’t even predict whether a hurricane is going to hit between Miami, Florida and Boston, Massachusetts, or maybe miss the entire East Coast of the US altogether until 24 to 48 hours before landfall. What makes us think we can predict what will happen in 2011 or 2038 or 2090? The fact is the parade of horribles have never come true with respect to global warming. I have no idea whether there is global warming or not, but I certainly know there is evidence on both sides of the debate. I also know that focusing on a few hundred years or even a thousand years is ridiculous given the earth is 4.6 billion years old, and ridiculous given that over the last 400,000 years ice core data shows the earth was warmer at times than it is now, including a good many times when no humans were around.
Polluting less is a good idea, as is conserving energy, not strip mining natural resources and living responsibly so as to hopefully leave a better planet for the future. But the path to this obviously common sense approach is not to lie, manipulate and bastardize science; and it is certainly not to force those innovators who have the means and ability to affect desired change to have to forfeit patent rights in the name of saving a planet that doesn’t appear to need saving.