A Patriot's History of the USA

British Watergate: Climate Meltdown

A recent exchange of e-mails with a friend over “global warming” shows, I think, the direction this fraud is headed. Of course, it’s always risky to extrapolate from one or two anecdotes, but I think my friend is representative of many people who originally bought into the “global warming” nonsense out of a) a Christian sense of stewardship for the earth; b) observable examples of pollution in California which “should be” or “seem” to be evidence of man’s impact on the climate; and c) the still-powerful influence of the drive-by media on propagandizing Americans.

Several weeks ago, on a visit to my friend’s California home, this Christian woman–who is right on all the other issues—surprised me by letting on that she “believed” in “global warming.” She had actually read a great deal, and watched a lot of news on it, but it was all one-sided. She had not yet been introduced to Drudge, or FreeRepublic, and didn’t regularly listen to Rush Limbaugh or Fox News. She cited study after study, which I countered, before finally saying, “We have to start at square one. Let me send you some material.” So in the ensuing weeks I sent a reference to Michael Crichton’s State of Fear. Folks, this is the single best place for any uninitiated person to go to understand the politics of “global warming.” The book is, well, a novel (meaning it’s fiction, for those of you from Rio Linda). But it’s the first novel I ever read with actual scientific studies cited in the body and a long bibliography of scientific studies at the end. With all the trashing of Sarah Palin’s book for not having source notes, I guess you could say that Crichton’s work of fiction had more sources than did both of Barack Obama’s books combined!! Anyway, State of Fear uses a fictional story to expose the fraud of “global warming” science. Crichton explains how

*articles published in scientific “peer reviewed” journals are heavily politicized by the editors’ selection and rejection processes (something I know all about as an academic);

*abstracts often do NOT represent the conclusions of the paper itself and are SOMETIMES written by the editors, not the authors, to comply with politically correct conclusions. Thus, a paper can “prove” one thing, yet be reported to the media as “proving” something entirely different. The dolts in the press never bother to read the original paper, even if they could understand the science.

*ALL science in America and the free world is now influenced by (though I would not go so far as to say “controlled by”) government(s) and government money. As with “expert witnesses” in trials, you get the answers you pay for. If the government “believes” in “global warming,” that’s the science your studies will “show.” We recently saw that a top EPA guy was given the boot because his studies didn’t come to the “right” conclusions.

*you can prove anything with trend lines, depending on when you start the trend. For example, if we want to show that Americans were vastly richer under, say, Clinton, start your trend line with Jimmy Carter. Anything looks better if you start with a Georgia peanut-brain. If you want to show that, as in the Bush years, things were “getting worse,” start the line somewhere under Reagan! Want the world hotter? Chop off the 1500s! Voila! A “heating” world.

Crichton’s book is a must-read primer for anyone. But then I recommended to my friend Bjorn Lumborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist or Fred Singer’s Unstoppable Global Warming . . . Every 1500 Years! or Red Hot Lies by Chris Horner. Along with a barrage of articles suggesting in fact the world was cooling; that human activity has virtually no impact on climate one way or another; that so-called “green” energy is absolutely cost-prohibitive and NOT “energy efficient,” my friend moved from advocate to neutral. I tip my hat to her. That was an amazing acknowledgment of scientific reality and it’s not easy to admit you were wrong.

What pushed her—and, I suspect, most—over the edge though was Britain’s Watergate (now called “Climategate”). Scientists at the University of East Anglia, the leading “global warming” gene-pool in the world (outside of Algore’s mega-mansion), were exposed as frauds. Over a week ago, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) saw its computer hacked and thousands of e-mails and other data were posted on a Russian server. These then went viral, shooting across the world and energizing climate-change skeptics.

By now, most attentive people are aware that the e-mails show that “global warming” scientists suppressed contrary evidence, jimmied their graphs and charts to show a warming world, left out key pieces of data that challenged or absolutely overturned their view, and sought to censor or deny publication in scholarly journals to any scientist who had contrary data—no matter how professionally compiled or thoughtfully analyzed. This is the exact opposite of science. Albert Einstein, upon being told that a second crucial test of three had proven his Theory of Relativity, remarked that it just meant he wasn’t wrong yet. Einstein always viewed scientific proof as being one step away from disproven. A scientist should always look skeptically, knowing he doesn’t know everything. (That would be God, for those of you from Rio Linda, or, if you’re Obama, Obama).

Now, David Holland, a climate researcher in Northampton, had filed several Freedom of Information Requests with Britain’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for material now found in the leaked e-mails. Holland now seeks prosecutions against these, well, climate liars. One of the e-mails admits that a “trick” was used to hide current climate decline.

Now this British Woodward/Bernstein—an engineer by trade—has forced the climate hysterics to release their data. Just as congress did with the stimulus and health-care bills the “global warming” crowd is counting on people not reading the real data, but relying on the press’s coverage of what was in the e-mails. It won’t work.