Paul Joseph Watson
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Outrage surrounding the climategate scandal is increasing as desperate apologists for the crooks caught manipulating data to “hide the decline” in global warming attempt to distance themselves from the perpetrators, burning a few scientists to save the larger carbon tax gravy train in a cynical damage limitation exercise.
The potential for the climategate scandal to derail the gargantuan agenda to exploit fraudulent fearmongering about global warming in order to ram through a new carbon tax is growing after the ringleader of the scam, Phil Jones, the head of the Climactic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, temporarily stepped down pending an investigation.
In addition, Michael Mann, a professor in the meteorology department at Penn State University, whose emails were included in the climategate leak, is also the subject of an investigation into his work.
The UK Met office was also forced to go on the offensive and issue a statement which highlighted the 2007 IPCC report as evidence that their data was solid, despite the fact that the very scientists involved in the climategate scandal engaged in intimidation tactics and academic witch hunts to ensure data which they politically disagreed with was blocked from appearing in the IPCC report, as well as manipulating data that appeared in the IPCC report to “hide the decline” in global warming.
The subject will also be aired in a hearing today convened by the U.S. Congress’s select committee on global warming. Warmist advocates are set to testify but they will undoubtedly be grilled by skeptics, so expect sparks to fly.
Meanwhile, warmists like Lord Stern are admitting that climategate could jeopardize a deal at Copenhagen on CO2 emissions that was already in doubt before the scandal broke.
The climategate apologists seem to have settled on two approaches in dealing with the crisis that the scandal represents. On the one hand, a majority have simply sought to downplay the whole issue as if the fact that the very scientists who produced the foundational data for the contention that global warming is man-made were caught manipulating the evidence is no big deal. This has largely backfired, with even the usually obedient establishment media acknowledging that the story has huge consequences.
[efoods]For example, a CBS News report today concedes that, “The leaked files show that prominent scientists were so wedded to theories of man-made global warming that they ridiculed dissenters who asked for copies of their data, plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing, and concealed apparently buggy computer code from being disclosed under the Freedom of Information law.”
This accurate description is a far cry from how the apologists have tried to frame the whole issue as mere “rancor” between scientists. In addition, citing the notion that the emails were obtained illegally by a hacker in an attempt to somehow absolve the scientists of any suspicion has also evaporated as a defense, since it is now widely accepted that the data was not hacked, but rather leaked from the inside.
A new tactic on behalf of warmists is to accept that Jones, Mann et al are guilty of malfeasance but then glibly claim that the debate is still over on global warming. Fellow warmists are distancing themselves from the climategate crooks in an apparent effort to burn just a handful of scientists, thereby using damage limitation to prevent the scandal from curtailing the wider global warming agenda.
Declan McCullagh summarizes how global warming advocates are busy trying to extricate the climategate crooks from the UN IPCC agenda, despite the fact that they produced the data that the IPCC used in its 2007 report.
“Some mainstream academics working in the area have distanced themselves from Mann, Jones, and other researchers whose correspondence has drawn allegations of impropriety. Aynsley Kellow, a professor at the University of Tasmania who was an expert reviewer for a U.N. global warming report, told ABC Radio there was evidence of a “willingness to manipulate raw data to suit predetermined results, you’ve got a resistance to any notion of transparency, an active resistance to freedom of information requests or quite reasonable requests from scientists to have a look at data so that it can be verified.”
“Hans von Storch, director of the Director of Institute for Coastal Research who was assailed by Mann in one e-mail message, calls the CRU axis a “cartel” and suggests that Jones and others avoid reviewing papers. A colleague, Eduardo Zorita, went further and said Mann and his allies “should be barred” from future United Nations proceedings and warned that “the scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.”
Watch out for a biased investigation to amount to nothing more than a slap on the wrists for people like Jones and Mann, while still refusing to acknowledge that “consensus” presumptions about global warming have been challenged as a result of climategate.
Since the investigation into Jones and the CRU will likely be conducted by Lord Rees of the Royal Society, who is a staunch warmist, it will undoubtedly be a complete whitewash. Indeed, a source cited by the Telegraph’s James Delingpole says that the British government and the foreign office has already made it clear to the University of East Anglia and Rees that they will need to “keep a lid on everything lest it destabilises Copenhagen.”
This is precisely why we need to keep the pressure up and never let climategate slip away quietly by allowing the establishment to exonerate the crooks involved and the true significance of the whole issue.
A major new salvo has arrived in the form of Lord Monckton’s comprehensive report on climategate, which needs to go viral in the days before next week’s Copenhagen summit at which elitists will attempt to push through binding agreements on CO2 emissions that will bankrupt economies and lead to more poverty and devastation that any warming of the earth, be it natural or man-made, could ever accomplish.