Un­set­tling of the ‘set­tled’ cli­mate sci­ence

The Washington Times Weekly - - Commentary - Michelle Malkin

“The sci­ence is set­tled,” we’ve been told for decades by zeal­ous pro­po­nents of man­made global warm­ing hys­te­ria. Thanks to an earth-shak­ing hack­ing scan­dal across the pond, we now have moun­tains of doc­u­ments from the world’s lead­ing global warm­ing ad­vo­cacy cen­ter that show the sci­ence is about as set­tled as a south­east Asian tsunami. You won’t be sur­prised by the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion’s re­sponse to Cli­mate­gate.

With pursed lips and closed eyes and ears, the White House is cling­ing to the old eco­mantra: The sci­ence is set­tled.

Never mind all the dev­as­tat­ing new in­for­ma­tion about data ma­nip­u­la­tion, in­tim­i­da­tion and cult-like coverups to “hide the de­cline” in global tem­per­a­tures over the last half-cen­tury, they say. The sci­ence is set­tled.

Never mind what The At­lantic’s Clive Crook, af­ter wad­ing through the cli­mate sci­ence e-mail files of the U.K.’s Cli­matic Re­search Unit at the Uni­ver­sity of East Anglia, called the over­pow­er­ing “stink of in­tel­lec­tual cor­rup­tion” — com­bined with mafia-like sup­pres­sion of dis­sent, sup­pres­sion of ev­i­dence and meth­ods, and “plain sta­tis­ti­cal in­com­pe­tence” ex­posed by the doc­u­ment trove. The sci­ence is set­tled.

Never mind the ex­pe­di­ent dis­ap­pear­ance of mounds of raw weather sta­tion data that dis­sent­ing sci­en­tists were seek­ing through free­dom of in­for­ma­tion re­quests from the Cli­matic Re­search Unit. The sci­ence is set­tled.

In March, Pres­i­dent Obama made a grandiose show of putting “sci­ence” above “pol­i­tics” when lift­ing the ban on gov­ern- ment-funded hu­man em­bry­onic stem cell re­search. “Pro­mot­ing sci­ence isn’t just about pro­vid­ing re­sources — it’s about pro­tect­ing free and open in­quiry,” he said dur­ing the sign­ing cer­e­mony. “It’s about let­ting sci­en­tists like those who are here to­day do their jobs, free from ma­nip­u­la­tion or co­er­cion, and lis­ten­ing to what they tell us, even when it’s in­con­ve­nient — es­pe­cially when it’s in­con­ve­nient. It is about en­sur­ing that sci­en­tific data is never dis­torted or con­cealed to serve a po­lit­i­cal agenda — and that we make sci­en­tific de­ci­sions based on facts, not ide­ol­ogy.”

Yet, the pro-sound sci­ence pres­i­dent has sur­rounded him­self with rad­i­cal Cli­mate­gate de­niers who have spent their en­tire pro­fes­sional ca­reers “set­tling” man­made global warm­ing dis­as­ter sci­ence through fear mon­ger­ing, in­tim­i­da­tion and ridicule of op­po­nents.

Sci­ence czar John Hol­dren, who tes­ti­fied on Capi­tol Hill last week at a hear­ing on Cli­mate­gate, in­fa­mously hyped weather catas­tro­phes and de­mo­graphic dis­as­ters in the 1970s with his pop­u­la­tion con­trol freak pals Paul and Anne Ehrlich. He made a pub­lic bet against freemar­ket econ­o­mist Ju­lian Si­mon, pre­dict­ing dire short­ages of five nat­u­ral re­sources as a re­sult of feared over­con­sump­tion. He lost on all counts. No mat­ter.

Mr. Hol­dren’s fail­ure didn’t stop him from writ­ing force- fully about mass ster­il­iza­tion and forced abor­tion “so­lu­tions” to a fiz­zling, siz­zling, over­pop­u­lated planet. And it didn’t stop him from earn­ing a liv­ing mak­ing more dire pre­dic­tions.

In 1986, Mr. Ehrlich cred­ited Mr. Hol­dren with fore­cast­ing that “car­bon-diox­ide cli­mate-in­duced famines could kill as many as a bil­lion peo­ple be­fore the year 2020.” He went on to Har­vard and the White House. On the “Late Show with David Let­ter­man” ear­lier this year, Mr. Hol­dren fret­ted that his son “might not see snow!”

Canada Free Press (CFP) colum­nist and Cana­dian cli­ma­tol­o­gist Dr. Tim Ball notes that Mr. Hol­dren turned up in the Cli­mate­gate files be­lit­tling the work of as­tro­physi­cists Sallie Bal­i­u­nas and Wil­lie Soon at the Har­vard-Smith­so­nian Cen­ter for As­tro­physics in the So­lar, Stel­lar and Plan­e­tary Sciences Divi­sion. Hol­dren put “Har­vard” in sneer quotes when mock­ing a re­search pa­per Bal­i­u­nas and Soon pub­lished in 2003 show­ing that “the 20th cen­tury is prob­a­bly not the warmest nor a uniquely ex­treme cli­matic pe­riod of the last mil­len­nium.” First, deny. Next, de­ride.

En­ergy Sec­re­tary Steven Chu picked de­ri­sion as his weapon ear­lier this year when ped­dling the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion’s green­house-gas emis­sion pol­icy. “The Amer­i­can pub­lic [. . .] just like your teenage kids, aren’t act­ing in a way that they should act,” The Wall Street Jour­nal quoted Mr. Chu. He dis­missed dis­sent by as­sert­ing that “there’s very lit­tle de­bate” about the im­pact of “green en­ergy” pol­icy on the econ­omy.

There’s “very lit­tle de­bate,” of course, be­cause dis­senters get crushed.

The Obama team’s chief eco-dis­sent crusher is cli­mate czar Carol Browner. She over­saw the de­struc­tion of En­vi­ron­men­tal Pro­tec­tion Agency com­puter files in brazen vi­o­la­tion of a fed­eral judge’s or­der dur­ing the Clin­ton years re­quir­ing the agency to pre­serve its records.

Over the past year, the EPA has sti­fled the dis­sent of Alan Car­lin, a se­nior re­search an­a­lyst at the agency who ques­tioned the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s re­liance on outdated re­search on the health ef­fects of green­house gases. Re­cently, they sought to yank a YouTube video cre­ated by EPA lawyers Al­lan Za­bel and Lau­rie Wil­liams that is crit­i­cal of cap-and-trade. Ms. Browner re­port­edly threat­ened auto ex­ecs in July by telling them to “put noth­ing in writ­ing [. . .] ever” about their ne­go­ti­a­tions with her.

And she is now lead­ing the “sci­ence is set­tled” stonewalling in the wake of Cli­mate­gate. “I’m stick­ing with the 2,500 sci­en­tists,” she said. “Th­ese peo­ple have been study­ing this is­sue for a very long time and agree this prob­lem is real.” Book-cook­ers are good at mak­ing it seem so.

In any case, last year, more than 31,000 sci­en­tists — in­clud­ing 9,021 Ph.D.s — signed a pe­ti­tion spon­sored by the Ore­gon In­sti­tute of Sci­ence and Medicine re­ject­ing claims of hu­man­caused global warm­ing.

But hey, who’s count­ing? The sci­ence is set­tled.

Michelle Malkin is a na­tion­ally syndicated colum­nist.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.