Global Warming Fraud and the Future of Science

American Thinker ^ | November 29, 2009 | J.R. Dunn

[ez]

The real power of the emails isnot in what they reveal, but in the fact that they confirm what many were already saying. Let's stop treating them as a revelation and start treating them as evidence.

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

Yes it is and yes they should. Will be using this article in my continuing effort to convince some of the liberals in my family that Global Warming has been and is a huge hoax aimed at destroying our way of life, our freedoms,our economic wellbeing, and at surrendering our national sovereignty to a Global Communistic cabal...run by he eco-communists.

Al Gore should be sued for everything he is worth and cap and trade should immediately be thrown into the trash bin and every cap and trade company, scheme, green business that is tied to GW farce, should go bankrupt....especially Algore’s.

[SnuffaBolshevik]

"There is one thing I expect to happen before Mann goes off into the sunset to take drive-in orders at McDonalds: A demand from the real scientific community that he answer all those questions. To face his huge "FAIL' like a man and resign before he is fired."

I believe I read somewhere that Penn State was going to do a soup to nuts investigation of Mann.

Hopefully it won't be a cover-up.

[highlander_UW]

•You don't manipulate data. (As CRU chief scientist Phil Jones stated he was doing in the now-famous "Mike's trick" e-mail, not to mention throughout the now-famous source code.) •You don't fabricate data. (As one CRU scientist did while compiling weather-station data. Running into problems, he states, "I can make it up. So I did." He adds an evil smiley face. This e-mail has gone under radar up until now. It can be found in the comments on James Delingpole's blog. •You don't deny data to other investigators. (As Hansen, Jones, and, it appears, everybody else in the warming community has done at one time or another.) •You don't destroy evidence. (As the members of the CRU did following a Freedom of Information request.) •You don't bury contradictory data. (As Jones and several colleagues did in an attempt to undercut the impact of the Medieval Warming Period.) •You don't secretly manipulate the argument from behind the scenes. (As the CRU staff did with the website Realclimate.org., screening comments to allow only those that supported the warming thesis.) •You don't secretly undercut your critics. (As Mann advised the CRU to do concerning the scientific journal, Climate Researh: "I think we have to stop considering ‘Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.") •You don't try to get a journal editor critical of your case fired. (As the CRU staff evidently succeeded in doing with an editor for Geophysical Research Letters.)

You do if you're part of a conspiracy to commit fraud on a global scale.

[GOPJ]

Come on - the OZONE Hole - Population Bomb - Global Freezing - too many science scams have been left off.

Y2K wasn't a liberal scam - no one was making money off it. That really was honest people who were concerned. The rest of the crap was pure goldmine for grant gobblers.

[Vaduz]

Algore’s business card must read Bridge salesman.

[woofer]

Y2K wasn't a liberal scam - no one was making money off it. That really was honest people who were concerned.

I personally know people who were laughing all the way to the bank with the money they made from panicky people and institutions (say, hospitals) "correcting" the Y2K problems with their computers and software.

[GOPJ]

Look - there were problems with some of the software - but companies solved problems very early. We lacked faith in the private sector - a mistake.

But there wasn't a political scam going on with government grants going one way and political donations going the other way. That's what I mean by "scam". Global Warming was a scam - an intention lie to defraud.,,

[Salman]

The Y2K problem, though over hyped, was a real problem.

Guess what? They threw a lot of resources at it and fixed it. I was one of those "resources".

It wouldn't have been the end of the world, but it would definitely have been a great big mess not to fix it until afterward.

By dragging Y2K in, you weaken an otherwise good argument and make yourself look stupid.

[driftless2]

What made me suspicious in the early days of of warmist fearmongering was their rabid insistence that we we’re ALL GOING TO DIE!!! if we didn’t immediately switch from our present life-styles to a type of Unabomber existence where we all ate dead grass for sustenance and walked to our jobs. Which probably wouldn’t exist anyway if the warmists had their way. Why weren’t there warmists who said warming was going on, but it would be good for us? Or not cause too much harm? They all predicted unmitigated disaster when we know full well the earth has been much warmer in the past, and here we still are.

[GOPJ]

Why weren’t there warmists who said warming was going on, but it would be good for us? Or not cause too much harm? They all predicted unmitigated disaster when we know full well the earth has been much warmer in the past, and here we still are.

The "scientists" and politicians were doing a big SHAKE DOWN - and for that to work - to prime the money pump - they had to scare people.

One of these days, I hope Rush or Hannity or Stossel will get together a list of all scare stories - from our cities being destroyed to the oceans boiling and ... and make a special out of it. I'd watch...

I hate those effing liberals... I really do.

[omni-scientist]

Something else you don’t do is tout the output of your computer models as supportive of your theory, when those models are predicated on demonstrating the very same phenomenon you’re trying to prove.

[neverdem]

By dragging Y2K in, you weaken an otherwise good argument and make yourself look stupid.

Methinks some speedreading happened. The author only referenced Hansen's Y2K Glitch in which the NASA/GISS team led by Hansen "raised temperatures gathered over widespread areas by 1-2 degrees Fahrenheit."

The Y2K Glitch. This episode involved the NASA/GISS team led by James Hansen, possibly the most fanatical and unrelenting of all warmists, a man who makes Al Gore look like a skeptic. (Among other things, Hansen has demanded that warming "deniers" be tried for "crimes against humanity".) While examining a series of NASA temperature graphs, Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, himself not so much a skeptic as an anti-warming Van Helsing, uncovered a discontinuity occurring in January 2000 that raised temperatures gathered over widespread areas by 1-2 degrees Fahrenheit. McIntyre had no easy time of it, since Hansen refused to reveal what algorithm he'd used to process the data, forcing McIntyre to perform some very abstruse calculations to figure it out.

Once notified, Hansen's team promised to correct the error, stating that it was an "oversight". When the corrected figures were at last released, they rocked the church of warming from bingo hall to steeple. Vanished was the claim that the past few years were "the warmest on record". Now 1934 now took precedence. A full half of the top ten warmest years occurred before WW II, well prior to any massive CO2 buildup.

No explanation has ever been offered. We have a Y2K glitch that behaves like no other computer glitch ever encountered, uniformly affecting a large number of sources distributed almost nationwide. Although the incident trashed all recent data and raised uncomfortable questions about the warming thesis as a whole, NASA itself made no effort at an investigation or inquiry. All that we're ever going to hear is "oversight". I guess that's how they do things at NASA/GISS.

[neverdem]

Something else you don’t do is tout the output of your computer models as supportive of your theory, when those models are predicated on demonstrating the very same phenomenon you’re trying to prove.

Let them shoot themselves in the foot as much as they please. Their vaunted computer models completely failed since 1998 in predicting the lack of warming and recent cooling.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[ully2]

You wonder why everything the government touches turns to sh*t. Its because everything they try to do involves large amounts of money which attracts all the scamers.

[GOPJ]

When the corrected figures were at last released, they rocked the church of warming from bingo hall to steeple. Vanished was the claim that the past few years were "the warmest on record". Now 1934 now took precedence. A full half of the top ten warmest years occurred before WW II, well prior to any massive CO2 buildup. No explanation has ever been offered.

Neverdem - I really like that practical, logical, factual approach you have to things. It's strangely comforting. I didn't know the NASA connection to Y2K... If I had known, I would have been much more skeptical at the time.

[SteamShovel]

People should go to prison.

I predict that some will.....

.....if Obama leaves office.

If Obama stays in office through some emergency ploy, nobody guilty will be prosecuted. The people opposing the climate change agenda will be prosecuted. That means you and I probably.

[r-q-tek86]

ping

[NHResident]

Y2K was a scam for the vast majority of applications. It made a lot of money for IT consultants and some companies. Those that spent tons of money had no significant problems. Those that spent little or no money also had no significant problems. The problem was widely inflated by IT vendors and consultancies that saw it as a quick way to make a buck. It’s ever been thus, and will continue to be so.