The truth cannot be contained.
The biggest international hoax of modern times—global warming—took another damaging blow with the release on the Internet Nov. 22 of thousands of e-mails from scientists on the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) showing they deliberately misrepresented the scientific literature in order to support their alarmist position on global warming.
This new revelation follows the 2009 scandal when UN scientists were first discovered engaged in a cover-up of their erroneous information.
The new batch of hacked e-mails reveals the complicity of the U.S. Department of Energy in one of the four e-mails released from Professor Phil Jones, the disgraced head of the University of Anglia’s Climate Research Unit and lead author of a key chapter in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. Jones is quoted as saying:
Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get and has been well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder [U.S. Dept. Of Energy] in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.
That quote was included in a release on the new scandal from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a non-profit think tank.
Myron Ebell, director of CEI’s Center on Energy and the Environment, said, “If there were any doubts remaining...the new batch of E-mails...make it clear” that the IPCC “is an organized conspiracy dedicated to tricking the world into believing that global warming is a crisis that requires a drastic response...[T]he energy rationing policies that their junk science is meant to support would cost trillions of dollars.”
Barack Obama and most Democrats in Congress have been global warming advocates through the years. A Democratic initiative to create a global warming “propaganda office” to consolidate operations hit a stonewall at a congressional hearing where National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) officials defended the plans in Obama’s fiscal 2012 budget, the Washington Times reported in June.
The hearing came a day after alarmist-in-chief on global warming, Al Gore, sulked and whined that the Democrats’ “cap and trade” plan to curb greenhouse gas emission had not become law.
The new e-mails—5,000 of them—were anonymously release to the public, setting off a firestorm of controversy, a Forbes.com op-ed column noted.
The article pointed out that these themes emerged from the new e-mails: 1. prominent scientists in the eye of the global warming controversy are attempting to conceal instead of disseminate underlying data; 2. These scientists see global warming as a political "cause" instead of an objective scientific inquiry; and 3. Many of the scientists admit that many of the findings are dependent on consciously manipulating the findings and data.
“More than revealing misconduct and improper motives, the newly released emails additionally reveal frank admissions of the scientific shortcomings of global warming assertions,” the Nov. 23 article in Forbes reported.
Here are other excerpts from the e-mails just released from Professor Phil Jones:
Basis problem is that all models are wrong—not enough middle and low level clouds....[W]hat he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Casper and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.
Also: “One way to cover yourself and all those working at AR5 would be to delete all e-mails at the end of the process.”
Here are two candid e-mails commenting on the work of Professor Michael Mann of Penn State University, the chief inventor of the infamous hockey stick graph. (The hockey stick graph was used to show Northern Hemisphere temperatures for the last 600 or 1,000 years by indicating a sharp rise in the late 20th century temperatures suggesting the shape of a hockey stick):
Professor John Mitchell, U.K. Met Office: Is the PCA [Principal Components Analysis] approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems to me that in the case of MBH [one of the key hockey stick articles by Mann, Raymond S. Bradley, and Malcolm K. Hughes] the answer in each case is no.
The myth of man-made global warming posits horrendous climate developments, ranging from rising sea waters to shortages of food supplies and collapsing biodiversity systems. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, for instance, has said, “Much of Florida would be under water” and temperatures could rise by “5 to 6 degrees.”
The mainstream media has accepted global warming hook, line, and sinker. New York Times “reporter” Andy Revkin recently asked the alarmist community for the most persuasive data that will convince stupid Americans of climate change. He was quoted as writing: “Our Week in Review folks want...to pull together a graphic and short story by me explaining what aspects of recent...warming speak most clearly of probable human greenhouse influence….”
Global warming is big business. Even though by some accounts there has been no warming since 1998 and a dearth of sunspots portends global cooling, maintaining the myth of dangerous global warming brings in dollars to federal agencies, college research grants, rent-seeking alternative energy companies, and others. These unnecessary expenditures contribute to our $14 trillion budget deficit.
But Obama knows we have plenty of money to spend needlessly. We’re only $15 billion in debt.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.