‘CLI­MATE­GATE’

The Washington Times Weekly - - Politics -

“A week af­ter my col­league James Del­ing­pole, on his Tele­graph blog, coined the term ‘Cli­mate­gate’ to de­scribe the scan­dal re­vealed by the leaked e-mails from the Uni­ver­sity of East Anglia’s Cli­matic Re­search Unit, Google was show­ing that the word now ap­pears across the In­ter­net more than 9 mil­lion times. But in all th­ese acres of elec­tronic cov­er­age, one hugely rel­e­vant point about th­ese thou­sands of doc­u­ments has largely been missed,” Christo­pher Booker writes in the Lon­don Tele­gram, re­fer­ring to e-mails in which lead­ing cli­mate sci­en­tists ad­mit­ted to fal­si­fy­ing re­search, re­sist­ing data dis­clo­sure and black­balling skep­tics of man­made global warm­ing.

“The rea­son why even the Guardian’s Ge­orge Mon­biot has ex­pressed to­tal shock and dis­may at the pic­ture re­vealed by the doc­u­ments is that their au­thors are not just any old bunch of aca­demics. Their im­por­tance can­not be over­es­ti­mated. What we are looking at here is the small group of sci­en­tists who have for years been more in­flu­en­tial in driv­ing the world­wide alarm over global warm­ing than any oth­ers, not least through the role they play at the heart of the U.N.’s In­ter­gov­ern­men­tal Panel on Cli­mate Change (IPCC),” Mr. Booker said.

“Pro­fes­sor Philip Jones, the CRU’s di­rec­tor, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its re­ports. Through its link to the Hadley Cen­tre, part of the U.K. Met Of­fice, which se­lects most of the IPCC’s key sci­en­tific con­trib­u­tors, his global tem­per­a­ture record is the most im­por­tant of the four sets of tem­per­a­ture data on which the IPCC and gov­ern­ments rely — not least for their pre­dic­tions that the world will warm to cat­a­strophic lev­els un­less tril­lions of dol­lars are spent to avert it.

“Dr. Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of Amer­i­can and Bri­tish sci­en­tists re­spon­si­ble for pro­mot­ing that pic­ture of world tem­per­a­tures con­veyed by Michael Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ graph which 10 years ago turned cli­mate his­tory on its head by show­ing that, af­ter 1,000 years of de­cline, global tem­per­a­tures have re­cently shot up to their high­est level in recorded his­tory. ...

“Since 2003, how­ever, when the sta­tis­ti­cal meth­ods used to cre­ate the ‘hockey stick’ were first ex­posed as fun­da­men­tally flawed by an ex­pert Cana­dian statis­ti­cian, Steve McIn­tyre, an in­creas­ingly heated bat­tle has been rag­ing be­tween Mann’s sup­port­ers, call­ing them­selves ‘the Hockey Team,’ and McIn­tyre and his own al­lies, as they have ever more dev­as­tat­ingly called into ques­tion the en­tire sta­tis­ti­cal ba­sis on which the IPCC and CRU con­struct their case.

“The senders and re­cip­i­ents of the leaked CRU e-mails con­sti­tute a cast list of the IPCC’s sci­en­tific elite, in­clud­ing not just the ‘ Hockey Team,’ such as Dr. Mann him­self, Dr. Jones and his CRU col­league Keith Briffa, but Ben San­ter, re­spon­si­ble for a highly con­tro­ver­sial rewrit­ing of key pas­sages in the IPCC’s 1995 re­port; Kevin Tren­berth, who sim­i­larly con­tro­ver­sially pushed the IPCC into scare­mon­ger­ing over hur­ri­cane ac­tiv­ity; and Gavin Sch­midt, right-hand man to Al Gore’s ally Dr. James Hansen, whose own GISS record of sur­face tem­per­a­ture data is sec­ond in im­por­tance only to that of the CRU it­self.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.