Sunday, June 19, 2011

Climate-change GreenFear: Junk-science recycled into junkier politics

It would be nice for some of Niagara's GreenFear-spreaders to provide a local rebuttal to Rex Murphy's column, "Inviting the fox into the henhouse" (National Post, Jun.18, 2011):

"One of the disturbing practices revealed by the great cache of emails out of the University of East Anglia - the so-called Climategate emails - was the attempted shortcutting or corruption of the oh-so precious peer-review process. The emails contained clear declarations of how the grand viziers of climate science would lean on journals and reporters to make sure certain critics did not get the validation, the laying on of peer-reviewed hands, so critical to full participation in the great climate debate. This was most succinctly expressed by the beautiful quote from Dr. Phil Jones of East Anglia that, "We will keep them out somehow -even if we have to redefine what peer-review literature is."

Much of what the world bizarrely allows to be called climate "science" is a closetgame, an in-group referring to and reinforcing its own members. The insiders keep out those seen as interlopers and critics, vilify dissenters and labour to maintain a proprietary hold on the entire vast subject. It has been described very precisely as a "climate-assessment oligarchy." Less examined, or certainly less known to the general public, is how this in-group loops around itself. How the outside advocates buttress the inside scientists, and even -this is particularly noxious -how the outside advocates, the non-scientists, themselves become inside authorities.

It's the perfect propaganda circle. Advocates find themselves in government offices, or on panels appointed by politicians disposed towards the hyper-alarmism of global warming. On the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) boards and panels, like seeks out like. And when the IPCC issues one of its state-of-the-global-warming-world reports, legions of environmentalists, and their maddeningly sympathetic and uninquisitive friends in most of the press, shout out the latest dire warnings as if they were coming from the very mouth of Disinterested Science itself.

An early and particularly graphic illustration of this vicious circle came when the IPCC 2007 report warned that most the great Himalayan glaciers would melt by the year 2035. Not only was the claim of a massive melt the very height of ignorant nonsense -the sun would have to drop on the Earth to provoke a melt of this proportion - it was also plucked from a seven-year-old publication of the ever busy World Wildlife Federation (WWF). As the Times of London put it, the claim itself was "inherently ludicrous" culled from a "campaigning report" rather than "an academic paper," was not "subject of any scientific review" and despite all these shortcomings became "a key source for the IPCC ... [for] the section on the Himalayas."

A scare report, seven years old, from the an environmental advocacy group, became the key document for a major report released under the authority of the IPCC, the world's best and brightest global warming minds. Sir Isaac Newton would be so proud.

Now we have an even more telling illustration of this same sad, vicious circle. It was first reported on by Steven McIntyre on his blog, Climate Audit (and was run on the FP Comment page of Friday's National Post). McIntyre revealed that the IPCC used a Greenpeace campaigner to write a key part of its report on renewable energy and to make the astonishing claim that "close to 80% of the world's energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies." He further revealed that the claim arose from a "joint publication of Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC)." And it turns out that while working for the IPCC, the Greenpeace campaigner approvingly cited a Greenpeace report that he himself was the lead author of. He peer-reviewed himself.

A report on renewables, by the Renewable Energy Council of Europe, and Greenpeace, peer-reviewd by the man who wrote it. All they need add is a citation from the Suzuki Foundation and an endorsement from Elizabeth May and "the science will be settled" forever.

This is not just letting the fox into the hen house. This is giving him the keys, passing him the barbeque sauce and pointing his way to the broiler. Or, as McIntyre put it in plainer terms: "A lead author of the IPCC report, and of the hyped 80% scenario, is Sven Teske of Greenpeace International, whose official contribution is essentially based on a Greenpeace report cooked up with Europe's renewable energy industry."

Kind people may put this down to pure sloppiness on the part of the IPCC. Coming after its disastrous handling of the Himalayan glacier melt, however, it looks to me more like deliberate mischief. The IPCC cannot be that stupid by chance. Why these stories, and others of comparable magnitude, have not worked their way into the consciousness of the world's politicians despite such clear demonstrations of the IPCC's ramshackle processes is a mystery. But thanks to Steve McIntyre and others of nearequal courage, standing firm against the rage and mockery of the alarmist warming establishment, at least some of the IPCC's dubious and chillingly erroneous practices are revealed."
*
Let's ask Liberal MPP Jim Bradley - Ontario's chief climate-change / global-warming bullshit artist - to comment on Murphy's story.
C'mon there, Jimmy, Ole Feller - spill your secrets! Tell Ontarians the ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC BASIS for your Kyoto agitation, and your green bolshevik climate lies!!
Yep - Liberal Jim Bradley has never publicly revealed  his basis, his sources, his influences, his... um... "reasoning" - for pulling his green climate fraud onto the province of Ontario.
Jimmy's had plenty of chances to provide a detailed explanation - and, we're still waiting!! [For decades, Niagara's media has been loathe to question Liberal MPP Jim Bradley's GreenFear-based climatalarmism.]
Jim Bradley is not the only climate-change-global-warming fear-mongering greenshevik in Niagara - let's get St.Catharines joke of a mayor Brian McMullan's response to Murphy's story!
McMullan doesn't think he has to provide any answers either for his deluded climate fear-spreading - McMullan partnered the City of St.Catharines up WITH the WWF for all those earth-day-turn-out-the-lights propaganda efforts for the last several years - has anybody asked Mayor McFullofit to actually prove that sitting in the dark for a symbolic hour is anything more than symbolic - and fraudulently symbolic, at that?
What a green-con-artist. [...and, year after year, Niagara's complicit press runs the earth day hokum WWF/McMullan propaganda, NO QUESTIONS ASKED!!]
It's sheer lunacy: GreenFear TM paranoia manifested in duplicitous publicly-funded policy.
How about that other local climate-change-fear-monger, Liberal mayor of Niagara Falls, Jim Diodati - ditto for him, as well - let's ask Diodati to offically explain the "causes" of  "global-warming" - and then let's ask Diodati to explain the role of water vapour and the sun in creating GHG; then let's also ask Diodati about Niagara Falls' role in contributing to "climate-change", and why he's not stopping the creation of Niagara's dangerous, vaporous planet-killing mists!
These green-pandering political hacks are perpetrating a massive fraud, using junk-science from Al Gore's ass to scare citizens into adopting green socialism - former Liberal MP Walter Lastewka did it, Liberal joke Stephane 'Bumbledore' Dion did it, Michael Ignatieff did it, now the Conservatives are even getting into it... all based on a 'consensus' mirage, recycling junk-science into junkier politics.
Then we had a report by Kristy Kirkup in the Jun.16, 2011 St.Catharines Standard telling us about more climate-change fear being spread by Jack - off MassageBoy Layton's NDP environment critic Megan Leslie.
Perhaps while the above-mentioned GreenFear-spreading kyodiots ignore responding to Murphy, they can also hide from and refuse to comment on these columns as well:

- Tom Harris'  No climate debate" (National Post,Jun.8, 2011)

-  Vivian Krause's  "Tarred by science: How green groups pursued oil sands agenda" (National Post, Jun.14, 2011)

- Terence Corcoran's  "Lipstick, Apples, & sperm count" (National Post, Jun.14, 2011)

- Terence Corcoran's "Greens 'lost' as growth prevails" (National Post, May 6, 2011)

- Terence Corcoran's  "No climate death in Venice"  (National Post, Jun.16, 2011)

*

So, let's fast forward to Howard Fischer's Dec. 8, 2017 Tuscon.com report "UA ordered to surrender emails to skeptics of human-caused climate change" which, all GreenFear-pprpaganda-packed years later, is nevertheless still DIRECTLY linked to the phony 'hockey-stick' issue behind the initial Climategate scandal:

"The University of Arizona has been ordered to surrender emails by two UA scientists that a group claims will help prove that theories about human-caused climate change are false and part of a conspiracy.
Pima County Superior Court Judge James Marner rejected arguments by the Board of Regents that disclosure of the documents would be “contrary to the best interests of the state.”
Marner said it may be true that some of the documents sought by Energy & Environment Legal Institute might be classified as unpublished research, manuscripts, preliminary analyses, drafts of scientific papers and plans for future research.
But the judge said the subject matter of the documents has become available to the general public. And that, Marner said, does not allow the university to withhold disclosure under a separate section of the law governing university records.
There was no immediate response from the university.
The ruling is a turnabout for Marner, who had previously ruled that some emails were properly withheld because they contained things like confidential information or attorney work product. He said at the time that the university did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in withholding other documents, including unpublished data, research, drafts and commentary.
But last year the state Court of Appeals told Marner to take another look.
Appellate Judge Joseph Howard, writing for the unanimous court, said it’s legally irrelevant what university officials thought was appropriate to disclose.
He said everyone involved in the case acknowledges that the emails from Malcolm Hughes, who is still with the UA, and Jonathan Overpeck, who left earlier this year, are public records. Howard said state law carries a presumption that all public records are subject to disclosure, with certain exceptions.
That, Howard said, required Marner to examine the records to determine whether making them public would harm “the best interests of the state,” as the university has claimed.
Craig Richardson, president of E & E, said the request relates to so-called “hockey stick” research. It drew its name from graphs that climate scientists say show a long-term decline in global temperatures over most of the last 150 years followed by a sharp rise.
“It’s the foundational argument for really this whole climate change industry and their focus,” he said.
In 2009, some computer servers at the University of East Anglia in Britain were hacked and emails stolen, with the names of the two UA scientists found in the mix. Some of what was found was labeled “climategate” and is being used by groups to show that global warming is a conspiracy.
“They showed there were a lot of games being played with the data,” Richardson said.
He said that getting all the emails, including from the two scientists, will reveal “an unvarnished view of how the process works ... and how climate scientists on the other side of this have been shut out.”
I'm sure that , as usual, no one at the St. Catharines Standard will dare approach local Liberal GreenFear propagandists such as MPP Jim Bradley or MP Chris Bittle or the hack Diodati for their comment on this development, or to even ask them to provide evidence of the scientific basis for the GreenFear they spout ('Dis ain't got nuttin' ta do wit Chrissy and da Jimmies..!). The local press allows these climate change hoaxters to peddle their climate fear policies without context or scrutiny.  

No comments: