Remember meForgot password?
    Log in with Twitter

article imageOp-Ed: The Unsettling of Climate Change Science

By Johnny Simpson     Feb 2, 2010 in Environment
Since the ClimateGate revelations prior to the Copenhagen summit, Climate Change proponents have been deluged with bad news. Illegalities were found in the East Anglia emails, and three key articles on which the IPCC report was based have been debunked.
The first thing any Climate Change or Anthropogenic Global Warming proponent will tell you is that "the science is settled" based on exhaustive research by some of the top scientists and researchers in the field. Yet ever since the damning revelations of the ClimateGate scandal involving top scientists and researchers at the East Anglia University in the UK, the news has been nothing but bad for the Green alarmists. Even the climate isn't cooperating.
In the case of the ClimateGate scandal itself, an internal review of UEA by the British Information Commissioner's Office has determined that the East Anglia researchers broke the law by refusing to comply with outside FOIA requests for their research and data. Since the statute of limitations on such offenses is only six months in England, the researchers involved cannot be prosecuted. It is, however, highly doubtful that Phil Jones, the director of UEA, will be returning to his job after stepping down while the investigation was ongoing. To make matters even worse for UEA, one of Britain's top science writers, Fred Pearce, just went into explicit detail as to how top UEA researchers tried to hide the flaws in their science.
Across the pond at Penn State University, top AGW researcher Michael Mann of Hockey Stick graph fame, who was caught up in the ClimateGate scandal and mocked in a popular video over the "hide the decline" email, is now under internal investigation by the university for his own role in the scandal. This puts Penn State in a severe ethical quandary. Should they investigate Mann and find severe improprieties in either his email communications or climate research, the university stands to lose millions in related federal grants.
As a result, outside state agencies and a Congressman from Pennsylvania have already promised to look very carefully at Penn State's final report on the Mann investigation. If it appears the university may be whitewashing the affair to protect their interests, Dr. Mann or both, they'll undertake their own. As a state university, Penn is subject to public investigations in matters of ethics and integrity. And as bad as it all appears now for Mann and Jones et al, the very bottom seems to be falling out of the Climate Change science construct at the UN's IPCC. Recent investigative reports on three key articles upon which the IPCC report was based reveal the underlying scientific methodology to be shoddy at best and fraudulent at worst.
Here they are, by the numbers:
1. WORLD MISLED OVER HIMALAYA GLACIER MELTDOWN: The head of the UN's IPCC panel, Rajenda Pachauri, has found himself at the center of the Climate Change storm of late. It was discovered prior to the Copenhagen summit that the article the IPCC based its "over 90% chance" assessment of the Himalaya Glaciers melting away by 2035 was pure speculation based on a news report in New Scientist magazine in 2000. That report in turn was based on a 1999 telephone conversation with Indian scientist Syed Hasnain, who admitted that his claim was pure speculation and not based on any scientific research. Even the date in the IPCC report, 2035, was in error. The date given by Hasnain was 2350, a difference of 315 years.
There doesn't appear to have been the slightest effort exerted by IPCC to validate Hasnain's news report through any kind of scientific research or peer review, and in fact seems to have been altered to read how the IPCC wanted it to read for its annual report. Even worse, it is now believed that Pachauri knew of that scientific fraud while attending Copenhagen, yet still stuck by the debunked story even as he announced study grants on the subject. The EU has already committed 4.3M Euros to study the glaciers based on IPCC's report. Ironically, Pachauri called skeptics of the Himalayas report guilty of "voodoo science."
2. MAKING MOUNTAINTOPS OUT OF MOLEHILLS: The IPCC also issued reports on the melting of ice on mountaintops across the world based on a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine, in which the writer claimed to be seeing less ice on mountaintops in more recent hiking expeditions. Again, no scientific follow-up or peer review, although one organization seems to be emerging as the de facto source for all these scientifically unsound articles upon which Pachauri and the IPCC appear to have based their reports: The World Wildlife Fund, an avid proponent of Climate Change policies.
3. STRANDED ON THE CORAL REEFS: In yet another revelation of incomprehensibly shoddy science on the part of IPCC, it turns out that an IPCC report linking coral reef degradation to Climate Change was based verbatim on an unreviewed and unverified Greenpeace report titled "Pacific in Peril." As a result of all these revelations of shoddy scientific research and follow-up at IPCC, as well as serious allegations of corruption on the part of Mr. Pachauri, calls for his resignation from his post at IPCC are increasing.
In summation, how much are YOU willing to pay for a used junk science? It seems that every day now, new revelations are blasting the so-called scientific foundations of Climate Change, aka Global Warming, into scandalous and debunked oblivion. Today, it is news from NASA climatologists that another designated "greenhouse gas," water vapor, may be the prime culprit behind global temperature shifts and not CO2. Yet despite all the evidence of fraud, scientific malfeasance, Green profiteering and corruption at the very top of the Climate Change science ladder (which reads more like a sinister Mafia expose' than a primer on global environmental policy), Climate Change/AGW proponents are sticking to their guns like Linus to his blanket.
President Obama and liberal Democrats in Congress are still dead set on passing the economically crippling Cap-and-Trade bill, as well as doing away with cheap and reliable energy sources like coal and oil in favor of the more costly and inefficient, like expensive energy-inefficient solar panels and frozen wind turbines in Minnesota that weren't supposed to freeze, yet cost the state $300K a whack. For 11 turbines, that comes out to $3.3M for useless frozen scarecrows that will now require external energy to warm the hydraulic fluid that wasn't supposed to freeze, making them even more costly and energy-inefficient. And all that is only the tip of the union-favoring Green boondoggle taxpayer iceberg that awaits us in Washington.
None of this news seems to have impacted Leonardo DiCaprio either, who just posted a TAKE GREEN ACTION NOW! oped at HuffPo. The science still appears settled for Leo. Yet for those of us who are facing skyrocketing energy costs with Cap-and-Trade (Obama's words, not mine), not to mention stifling draconian regulations, more expensive Green boondoggles and perhaps even armies of Green Police like those that now patrol London like Big Green Brother, does the science appear settled to you? Settled enough for you to sacrifice even more liberties and thousands of hard-earned dollars to already-bloated governments?
I am a man of reason. I believe we should be responsible stewards and protectors of the environment. I'm all for reasonable conservation methods. Yet I see very little reason to believe in, much less sacrifice a good deal of my earnings and liberties, on the 'science' of Climate Change as we know it today. There's very little solid science, even less logic, and far too much Green greed and corruption. Climate Change and AGW proponents may call that the Big Oil point of view, but what do you all see with your own eyes? I see a science that is far from settled, and is in fact crumbling by the day. I certainly don't see enough to willingly load up even more of my paychecks and freedoms on a Green government bus and wave them goodbye.
If East Anglia, Penn State, fraudmeister James Hansen and IPCC have REAL scientific reports that are beyond dispute, reports that could convince even the greatest skeptics like me (which scientific minds should be by nature anyway), it's time to put them on public display, along with all the supporting research and data. No more dodging FOIAs. And they better be more convincing than the 31,000 scientists who have disputed AGW and Climate Change for what appear to be very valid scientific reasons. If I seem to favor the skeptics over the proponents, it's because the skeptics' side of the argument has yet to be mired in fraud, corruption, the demonization of detractors and the shoddiest science in public policy I have seen in my life.
If I did the kind of cheating on a report for my eighth grade science class the same way IPCC cheated on theirs with unfounded World Wildlife Fund propaganda, I'd be expelled from school. Oh, and one last nugget for thought: follow the Big Green money. Gore's value shot up from $2M in 2000 to $100M today because of Green, and Mr. Pachauri stood to earn millions of dollars in a scheme to shut down a steel plant in Britain as IPCC chief, which also would have resulted in 1700 jobs lost. Whose looking out for us little guys again? I think I'll take my chances with Big Oil. At least they're up front about being all about power and money. And I at least know that when I gas my car and put oil in my burner, I can both drive and be warm. Which sure beats the hell out of not being able to drive or stay warm because I can't afford gas and oil under Cap-and-Trade, and the wind turbines that are supposed to power my house are frozen solid! Is that progress, I ask you? Better yet, why don't you ask the White House, your Senators and Reps in Congress?
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 Pachauri, Phil jones, Michael mann, East anglia, IPCC
Latest News
Top News