Alarming News

November 23, 2009

News you must know

I wasn’t going to blog about this because I felt like everyone already had, but then I figured it’s a story that deserves every bit of publicity possible so what the hey.

When environmentalists aren’t thinking up “alarmist and armageddonist factoids”, they’re trying to shut down debate from global warming skeptics and fudge the numbers to support the only conclusion considered acceptable: that the earth is warming and it’s all your fault.

A hacker broke into the email system at University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, one of the leading research institutes in the UK. The Climate Research Unit in particular is, according to Wikipedia, “an early centre of work for climate change research. Publications include the recent study on anthropogenic polar warming. The School was also stated to be “the strongest in the world” by the Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government, Sir David King during a lecture at the John Innes Centre in 2005.” A school taken seriously, in other words.

What did the hacker make public?

Discussion of how to fake numbers in light of the news global temperatures have been moving DOWNWARD:

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Discussion of how to stifle debate on global warming:

From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Discussion on how to suppress unfavorable evidence from the public (The Telegraph explains: “Climate change sceptics tried to use Freedom of Information laws to obtain raw climate data submitted to an IPCC report known as AR4. The scientists did not want their email exchanges about the data to be made public.”):

From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008
“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise.”

The sad thing is that these scientists, who can’t defend their positions and so have instead decided that the “debate is over”, and their Hollywood and media defenders, are going to have a negative effect on the environment.

Few people hate nature and don’t want to see it preserved.

Few people love paying countries that despise us to sell us their oil.

Most people want some sort of alternative energy, want to see preservation as a way of life and want to enjoy the earth and pass it on to our children.

But the hysteria has become so unreasonable, the idea that the globe is warming, that it is the fault of humans and you must believe or be dismissed is completely ingrained in our society. And, of course, the only way to save the world is to destroy enterprise and wealth. When news like this comes out it makes reasonable people think that all environmentalism is a sham.  How can we take seriously the scientists who behave in this manner?  How can we listen to people like Al Gore, who said that global warming deniers are “like Bernie Madoff, they lied to the people who trusted them in order to make money” while he leaves his massive carbon footprint traveling all over the globe and his house uses 20 times the average energy of other homes?  Oh and let’s not forget that when he buys carbon credits, to offset the damage, he buys them from himself!

These holier-than-thou hypocrites are doing more to harm the environment through their words and deeds than any of us.  And yet they’re the leaders of environmentalism, and they can not be challenged.  Is the discovery of these emails the “final nail in the coffin” of the global warming myth?  The awesome James Delingpole of the Telegraph says probably not:

“Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW [Anthropenic Global Warming], with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover.”

I think that even that last line is much too hopeful.  The most we can do right now is spread this story far and wide, tell everyone you know that the scientists entrusted to bring us facts on our environmental situation are straight-up lying to us and that the hysteria must die down for us to be serious in conserving the environment.  It’ll take awhile, maybe Greenpeace will think up it’s alarmist factoid for its press release by then.

Posted by Karol at 02:51 PM |
Comments

Well said. This myth needs to be blown up.

Posted by: StB at November 23, 2009 at 3:03 pm

I really think the best thing we can do is tell every one of our “non-political” friends about this. Global warming crap is so accepted in the mainstream that challenging it has to happen on a very non-political level. Tell everyone you know who has kids being indoctrinated into this in their schools and doesn’t read the NY Times every day.

Posted by: Karol at November 23, 2009 at 3:13 pm

Karol, this is an amazing write up! I will post is on facebook now.

Posted by: Lacey at November 23, 2009 at 3:22 pm

In high school, I had a biology teacher who offered extra credit for essays on junk science. He’s retired now, but would he have the integrity to include the global warming hoaxsters? No one’s denying the Earth hasn’t been on a warming trend, since, uh, after all we’re getting out of the Ice Ages and the 18th century’s sudden cooling. It’s these pseudo-scientists’ propaganda of “how much” and “why” that’s more than questionable.

Few people hate nature and don’t want to see it preserved.

Strictly speaking, I don’t “hate” nature, but I dislike it. I like a nice walk through the park, or visiting national parks like Yellowstone and Yosemite, but I wouldn’t want to live there. I like our lives of metal and plastic that are cleaner, more comfortable and more convenient than any “natural state.”

I know what you’re saying, though. It’s utterly disingenuous of environmentalists to paint others as not caring about “the planet.” I care — to an extent, and certainly not to the absolute extent that I will sacrifice my family’s well-being to satisfy others’ cravings for power over me. The problem isn’t that I can’t find the balance for my own life, but that statists think they know the right mix for me, and they’ll use physical force to compel me to live by their standards.

Like with all things, the question arises: at what cost? It would be nice to be able to recycle everything and not have landfills, but at what cost?

Few people love paying countries that despise us to sell us their oil.

Again, I know what you’re saying, although strictly speaking, I don’t care if someone hates me but still sells me a product that’s cheaper than what I could produce myself. He could hate me more than anyone in the world, but it can’t be too bad if he still wants my business.

It’s only a problem if the seller is using the money to harm me (now or later, directly or giving it to friends), and if my busybody neighbors won’t let me produce something as cheaply as I could (thereby driving me to do business with someone who will later use the money against me).

Most people want some sort of alternative energy, want to see preservation as a way of life and want to enjoy the earth and pass it on to our children.

And again, I know what you’re saying, but strictly speaking I don’t want alternate forms of energy just for their own sake. If coal and oil will be the most viable for the next hundred years, that will suit me fine. If some scientist makes a breakthrough with solar cells, or we develop cost-effective turbines to harness ocean power for coastal areas, that’s fine too. I just want people to be free to choose what’s best for them.

Even overtly socialist France beats us at nuclear energy, which reminds me of another thing not heavily touted in the news. Did you hear that cancer rates in Westchester are lower than Rockland, Orange and Putnam, even though Westchester is home to Indian Point? So it’s being blamed on…wind patterns.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 23, 2009 at 4:38 pm

I’ve always been highly amused by tiny little brains that think the Earth survived this long but this is the generation that will kill it. Please. Earth withstood the Industrial Age and it will survive what… the internet age? If you need to feel guilty about something, feel badly about being an idiot but please don’t be so arrogant as to believe you can kill the planet with yourself.

Posted by: elana at November 23, 2009 at 6:06 pm

The UAE is one step above a good high school in terms of prestige. East Anglia indeed! It’s where you can have a picture of your mother and your sister and there’s only one woman in the snap. Just saying. They still point at aeroplanes there.

Posted by: bryan at November 24, 2009 at 1:01 pm

If GloBULL warming is such a apocalypse waiting to happen and our shoreline and cities soon to become underwater museums to our greed, why then did Al Gore just buy a waterfront condo in San Francisco for 4 million dollars.

People who believe in AGW are suckers, and as Barnum wisely said – there’s on those born every minute.

Posted by: Armando at November 24, 2009 at 1:11 pm

It’s downright shocking.

Posted by: Johnson at November 24, 2009 at 1:45 pm

Manbearpig is a hoax?
Seariously, though is this getting reported by the complicit media?

Posted by: RonL at November 24, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Post a comment