Though weeks old, news consumers aren’t being given details on the biggest scandal in the history of modern mankind; the headlines about Climategate aren’t there and the way it looks to-date, aren’t forthcoming either.
The Copenhagen Climate Summit is still in full swing, with dire predictions dictating the direction and way-of-life the free world enjoys. The policies and goals being sought are to the alarmists and precautionists necessary, no matter the fiscal or technological price. They subscribe to scientific data (now indisputably questionable at best) and put full faith and credit behind conventional wisdom and anecdotal evidence.
We who have long questioned the science and methods behind the environmental movement are now vindicated on the release (whether by hacker or whistleblower) of thousands of documents from
As the push for green living, green hobbying, green working, green this-and-that has grown in the marketplace, 72% of Americans believe that global warming exists (down 8% from last year), but not all of that percentage believes climate change is anthropogenic. Still, why is it that we are subjected to so much pressure to be environmentally conscience? The answer lies behind former Vice President Al Gore, who has been delivering the clarion call for the green movement. But Mr. Gore is not a scientist, so where does he get his information? Mr. Gore relies on a consensus of scientists, as does the United Nation’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). But they like Mr. Gore are too politicians, so where is it they get this scientific consensus? From none other than Messrs Jones and Mann, the same two scientists are at the heart of the scandal known as Climategate.
Philip Jones is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports and Michael Mann is the creator of the infamous “hockey stick” graph which shows an impending steep rise in global temperatures (which in 2003 was empirically demonstrated by Canadian statistician Steven McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick to be fundamentally flawed).
Skeptics have been right to question the “science” behind global warming alarmists, in no small part due common sense and the large gaps that have gone unexplained in climate change models and now we have the proof to demonstrate it.
-- Owen E. Richason IV
Chief Editor, Killswitch Politick