An analysis of the latest global warming fraud

Those of you who follow the climate science debate closely should make a note to check the Commentary website early next month, when the magazine will post James Delingpole‘s analysis of the fraud involving Peter Gleick‘s deception of The Heartland Institute.

For now, you’ll have to settle for a few key excerpts:

Why were so many climate activists and their supporters in the mainstream media so determined to believe an unsubstantiated story? The short answer is Climategate. …

… What the leaked emails revealed was that, in private, these scientists were considerably less certain about the the threat of man-made global warming than they claimed in their reports. They were also caught out bullying dissident scientists (even to the point of trying to shut down journals that published them, or having them fired from their universities), cherry-picking data, illegally breaching Freedom of Information requests, abusing the scientific method, losing vital data, and twisting evidence. …

… [G]lobal warming, all the evidence showed, had ceased in 1998, even as man-made carbon emissions had continued to rise, and … climate-change scientists knew it. Could this perhaps mean, as the skeptics had long argued, that the connection between carbon dioxide and “climate change” had been grossly exaggerated?

Clearly the global warming lobby needed a counterargument. And since hard scientific evidence couldn’t bolster their case — Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric physics at MIT, has noted that there is simply no evidence, only scary-looking computer projections that do not jibe with real-world data — they would have to find more oblique means of discrediting their opponents.

Speaking of Lindzen, he explained to Carolina Journal Radio/CarolinaJournal.tv in May 2007 why alarmists are so adamant in making their arguments.

No comments yet. You should be kind and add one!

Our apologies, you must be registered and logged in to post a comment.