Remember meForgot password?
    Log in with Twitter

Op-Ed: From ClimateGate to Carbonhagen

By Johnny Simpson     Dec 6, 2009 in Environment
For the delegates to the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit, inconvenient truths abound. Not the least of which is the prediction that attendees will generate a carbon footprint equal to all of Morocco's for 2006. And that's not even counting ClimateGate.
First Inconvenient Truth, by the numbers. Danish authorities have confirmed that at least 140 private jets, including Climate Mufti Al Gore's, will be shuttling back and forth many of the expected 16,500 delegates for the upcoming Carbonhagen Climate Change Slummit in Denmark. Since most delegates will be flying in, that averages out to approximately 16,500 falling polar bears, based on an average of 400kg of carbon generated per air passenger. Heads up, delegates! This Slummit is a Hard Hat Zone.
And let's face it, people, if you're a taxpayer-funded AGW egghead, bureaucrat or politician, flying in on a private jet and killing all those polar bears really isn't worth those sacred lost lives if you have to take a taxi or ride a bike the rest of the way. Correspondingly, the demand for carbon-belching stretch limos for the slummit is through the ozone hole. In fact, they're aren't enough in all of Denmark to fulfill the demand. Just 1200, that's it. But wait! Dozens mores are being driven in carbon-spewing luxury from all over Europe, just in time for the leather-seated Carbon Crusaders to save us all from our destructive CO2-generating habits!
In all, the UN estimates that the carbon footprint of the Carbonhagen Slummit should be roughly 40,584 tons of carbon-related emissions, or approximately the entire carbon output of the nation of Morocco for all of 2006. That comes out to 100,083.5 dead polar bears per 400kg of carbon emissions. Are there even that many polar bears on Planet Earth? Won't be by Wednesday! And all that's not even counting all the limos being driven to Carbonhagen from all over Europe, or all the CO2 about to be spewed by 16,500 blowhards.
When one Climate Slummit delegate was asked why they didn't just videoconference the whole thing for 'green' reasons, he replied that there was no substitute for personal contact. Or flying in style in private jets. Or riding in style in limos. Or the free prostitutes. Or caviar wedges you just can't eat through a TV screen. Actually, the delegate just mentioned the personal contact thing. I threw the rest in randomly because it seems to fit the template for Global Warming science itself, as exposed through ClimateGate. Just throw in whatever you see fit. Truth is not a factor. Just the outcome. In fact, the only thing I see missing from the big Carbonhagen Slummit picture are any of the 31,000 skeptical scientists. I'm sure it's just coincidence.
Which brings up the most glaring and damaging Inconvenient Truth of all for the Slummit attendees. As of this moment, the UK's Met Office, Britain's equivalent of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, is launching a years-long investigation into the actual science of what it is, exactly, the East Anglia CRU has been generating for the last ten years. The Met Office spokesman concluded that it will not be able to state global warming trends with absolute confidence until at least 2012, when they wrap up their investigation. For the record, the UK Met Office is one of only three climate agency databases worldwide upon which the IPCC bases its global warming analyses. Without Met's assurances, the Global Warming tripod is only standing on two very shaky legs.
Predictably, Gordon Brown's government is trying to nip the Met Office's investigation in the bud, stating that it will be seized upon by climate change skeptics. That assumption, however, is political and not scientific. Scientists would want to know the truth, the skeptics be damned. Did you expect any less? Lot at stake here politically. Not to mention the 140 private jets, 1200-plus limos, caviar, hotel suites and free prostitutes. Good thing we taxpayers don't have to cover the whores. Dodged some real cost bullets there!
As to the mainstream media, many outlets are contending with some Inconvenient Truths of their own, primarily through readers and viewers who don't buy their ClimateGate whitewashes and non-reportage of the scandal. Ironically, the New York Times' ombudsman, Clark Hoyt, in defense of his own newspaper's shabby reporting on the scandal, stayed true to form by compounding it with shabby reportage of his own:
The biggest question is what the messages amount to — an embarrassing revelation that scientists can be petty and defensive and even cheat around the edges, or a major scandal that undercuts the scientific premise for global warming. The former is a story. The latter is a huge story.
And the answer is tied up in complex science that is difficult even for experts to understand, and in politics in which passionate sides have been taken, sometimes regardless of the facts. So far, I think The Times has handled Climategate appropriately — a story, not a three-alarm story.
See, to Mr. Hoyt and the New York Times, the ClimateGate scandal only qualifies as a one-alarm story with nothing to it. Yet in Mr. Hoyt's own assessment, i.e. that ClimateGate is not a scandal that undermines the basic science, are contained the greatest omissions of facts that qualify ClimateGate as a three-alarm scandal per NYT's high standards of journalism. The science has been undercut. The CRU scientists have been corrupting the peer review process by shutting out well-known opponents, manipulating, hiding and even destroying data rather than reveal it under FOI requests, and cheered the death of a renowned skeptic. And how can you spin the following emailed statement into anything but nefarious, and not very difficult to understand outside of the New York Times' apparently cloistered editorial office?
“Kevin [Trenberth of the International Panel on Climate Change] and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
In short, the writer is talking about redefining science by redefining what goes into a scientific journal. Lot more going on than cheating around the edges there. That's cheating the whole goddamn book! Yet Mr. Hoyt of the New York Times felt that none of those inconvenient facts were worth mentioning. I smell Pulitzer for Pinchy in the field of Best Non-Reporting Of An Inconvenient Lefty Scandal. But that is how media, government and climate alarmists, each with their own set of vested interests in Green, have been dominating and defining the whole Global Warming movement all along. The science is settled. Skeptics are evil like Holocaust deniers. We must spend ten of trillions of dollars or the earth is doomed. Trust us!
Woudn't be the first Doomsday scam the unscrupulous would use to try to clean up on monetarily. The Catholic Church did it in the years 666 and 1000. So didn't the Seventh Day Adventists, in 1850. History is littered with failed Doomsday prophecies with a price: "Just give us all you have, and you will be saved!" Do you think any of the pious got back their possessions or properties from the churches when the predictions didn't come true in days of old? Is that what is destined for Western societies? To implement the "social justice" of Carbonhagen by giving trillions to poor nations through draconian regulations and taxes, i.e. stealing from the rich, even as the science itself is under full-blown top-to-bottom review by one of the three climate data centers upon which AGW is based? Think we'll get our money back if AGW is proven wrong?
I say press the reset button on Global Warming. Start from scratch, only this time around take the scientific approach. Start a whole review of the science from top to bottom, just like the UK's Met Office is doing right now. Give skeptics a voice and honest peer review in the debate. Make all reports transparent and available to the public, as all unclassified taxpayer-funded research should be. Base research grants not on whether an applicant supports one side or the other, but on the scientific merits of the applicant's proposal. I'd be willing to spend a few million to save a few trillion. Let the scientists resolve the issues, and keep the politicians and UN bureaucrats as far away from the scientific process as possible. They have corrupted it far too much already by having too damn much to gain by it. Just look at all the Slummit bennies alone.
So off to Carbonhagen by air and limo they go, to generate a Morocco-sized carbon footprint and demands for tens of trillions of dollars, global taxes, UN control of Big Green and not a whisper of ClimateGate. But there will be a lot of inconvenient truths for the delegates to face. Unfortunately, those delegates won't include Obama, PM Gordon Brown or the IPCC, all of whom seem to be racing to pass a treaty before the whole EnRon-like Global Warming fraud collapses under its own corpulence, corruption and public outrage. Or before they choke on all the CO2 they're about to generate in Carbonhagen. Skol!
By the way, I am calling this Carbonhagen conference a 'slummit' because that is exactly what it is: a bunch of like-minded blowhards preaching flawed junk science to the converted in the hopes of getting rich and powerful quick. They are operating in the same slums of science as did eugenics and phrenology practitioners, and the hoaxsters behind Piltdown Man and Bigfoot. That they will do it with limos, private jets, caviar and free hookers makes it no less of a slumming. East Anglia CRU has been exposed as a fraud, as has NASA's James Hanson many times over. The AGW fish is rotting from the head down.
Should the next Climate Change conference enroll an equal number of skeptics to proponents, THAT will be science and not before. Until then, it is just a gathering of the faithful and partisan politics on a global scale, with the party in power demonizing, stuffing, and silencing all opposing voices in pursuit of power and money that isn't theirs to take. I know lots of Americans can identify with that sentiment these days.
In closing, I've been told my best DJ opeds are my most impartial. I agree. I have opined dispassionately here on a wide variety of subjects, from the culture war over Roman Polanski and Master Soviet Spy Sir Anthony Blunt to bionics, robotics and even Terminator technologies to great success. Yet it is because of my love of pure science that goes back to childhood that I am so offended by the brazen scam that is AGW aka Climate Change. I don't doubt many scientists are doing their absolute best to discover what's really happening in our atmosphere. I worked in Navy Meteorology for five years. I was technically an employee of NOAA going by the book. I do not dispute the value of weather and climate research. I was a part of it once.
What I will dispute is the distortion and even falsification of science for fear-mongering fun and profit by far too many researchers, politicians and bureaucrats whose vested interests have nothing to do with the science, except for the fact that it has to go their way. For one to a call a scientific skeptic or dissenter a heretic or denier is not a scientific response in a healthy debate. It is the demonization of opponents for one party's gain and the other's loss. Nothing less. I will be glad to see the science of global warming and/or climate change deliberated in a truly scientific manner by scientists on both sides of the issue.
Let's have real public debates by qualified people. Unfortunately, that will not happen at Carbonhagen. Only enough CO2 for Morocco for a year. Just ask the skeptical scientists who've been shut out of the Slummit. They'll do the math for ya. In a way, aren't the Greens holding this carbon-spewing polar bear-murdering abomination a lot like the big kid in class telling everyone else not to fart letting out a skunk-killer? Not very scientific, I admit. I try to fill the gaps with logic. See how that works? Lastly, Christmas trees have been banned from the Slummit. I reckon that town's only big enough for one religion, pardner!
This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of
More about Copenhagen, Climate change, Global warming, Agw, Gore