Skip to content

ClimateGate: Data Fraud is the Method, Statism is the Goal

December 5, 2009

With ClimateGate broken wide open, you knew it was only a matter of time before Congress’ leading crusader against global-warming alarmism, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), entered the fray.  Last night on Fox, he and Sean Hannity had an interesting discussion about the scandal…but it could have been better if Hannity had let his guest make the point he was trying to make.

The Senator pointed out that it’s not just right-wing corporate shills who think ClimateGate is a real problem for the environmental Left, recounted his meetings with skeptical scientists who were being shunned from the discussion, and blasted the White House’s insistence on clinging bitterly to bad data.  Inhofe also said:

Barack Obama “is gonna go [to Copenhagen] with two messages that are really pretty scary.  One is, I think, that he’s gonna announce that the United States is going to reduce by, uh, I think they said 17 % by 2020.  Now, that’s not gonna happen, but a lot of people over there in other countries, they think that if a President says it, they don’t know that we have a Congress […] and the other one is, which I’m sure you’ve heard, he’s gonna commit $10 billion a year to, uh, developing nations, to help them, to do something about emissions in their countries.”

Inhofe was going to expand upon Obama’s second message, but Hannity cut him off, steering the conversation back to the East Anglia scientists’ misconduct.  Granted, hosts have the right to guide the course of their show to keep segments on topic, and ClimateGate’s inherent sleaziness is worth repeating, but we’ve heard it all before.  I, for one, would much rather have heard more about Obama’s latest policy schemes, about which even Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) warned the President:

“…the Administration may believe it has the unilateral power to commit the government of the United States to certain standards that may be agreed upon at the upcoming [conference],” but “As you well know from your time in the Senate, only specific legislation agreed upon in the Congress, or a treaty ratified by the Senate, could actually create such a commitment on behalf of our country.”

And as for the rest of the world’s contribution to reducing global carbon emissions, National Review’s Greg Pollowitz reminds us that it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘cuts’ is:

“Government sources revealed [India] could curb the carbon emitted relative to the growth of its economy — its carbon intensity — by 24% by 2020.  The target would mean emissions would continue to rise as the government aims to lift millions out of poverty, but by less than currently predicted.”

Again, it’s all well and good to remind the American people of the Left’s propaganda tactics—repetition is an important part of getting a message across—but we can’t lose sight of why they cook the books: to advance their crackpot policy initiatives and all-encompassing vision of government authority.

_____

Hailing from Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, Calvin Freiburger is a political science major at Hillsdale College.  He also blogs at the Hillsdale Forum and his personal website, Calvin Freiburger Online.

About these ads
8 Comments
  1. jallen permalink
    December 5, 2009 3:57 pm

    From the National Academy of Sciences, here is the crux of climategate (assuming the reader is familiar with the FOIA and the “lost” source data aspects of the issue):

    Ensuring the Integrity, Accessibility, and
    Stewardship of Research Data in the Digital Age

    http://www.nap.edu/html/12615/12615_EXS.pdf

    Data Access and Sharing Principle: Research data, methods, and other information integral to publicly reported results should be publicly accessible.

    Recommendation 5: All researchers should make research data, methods, and other information integral to their publicly reported results publicly accessible in a timely manner to allow verification of published findings and to enable other researchers to build on published results.

    Data Stewardship Principle: Research data should be retained to serve future uses.

    Data that may have long-term value should be documented, referenced, and indexed so that others can find and use them accurately and appropriately. Curating and indexing the data so that they can be used accurately and appropriately in the future.

    Recommendation 9: Researchers should establish data management plans at the beginning of each research project that include appropriate provisions for the stewardship of research data.

    At minimum, they have failed to a varying but significant degree on the Access Principal and the Stewardship principle.

    Only an open process, with full disclosure from all will result in an accurate picture of climate change upon which society can take actional steps with high confidence.

  2. Thomas Keaton permalink
    December 5, 2009 4:12 pm

    I have been reading the Harry Read Me site where the emails have been analyzed. There are software engineers who have analyzed the Fortran code as best they can. I have a background in system modeling. I was a systems architect and chief engineer on a number of large aerospace programs. I have degrees in physics and mathematics. I have had systems modelers working for me. I have had the largest concentration, in our company, of PhDs in Physics, Electrical Engineering, Mathematics, and Software Engineering working for me. The set up pf the data that was to be used for the Models the people used to try and model the climate in no way resembles a scientific approach to modeling any type of system. The very poor slipshod approach to the development of the code in their model resembles what would be done by some undergraduate totally unfamiliar with any discipline associated with engineering or science. The term witchcraft used by someone on the Read me site seems more appropriate. The defense of their work always seems to be there is a concensus of scientist on this matter. A concensus of idiots yeilds nonsense.

  3. Elaine B permalink
    December 5, 2009 8:21 pm

    Too many people and organizations, scientists and universities and campaign donors, as well as those in Congress stand to lose too much if the fraud of man-made global warming becomes a mainstream topic so don’t expect the exposure of these frauds to do too much damage.

  4. William James Ward permalink
    December 5, 2009 8:52 pm

    Al Gore flipped a coin for the scam, one side warming the other
    freezing. We have had both predictions in the past and now where
    I live in the North West it is cold and we have had cold and
    also heat which is all normal. What is not normal is that the Sun
    is doing nothing, no solar flares, none. We may be going into
    a mini or large ice age, or we may stay cold but it is not hot and
    there is no real global warming. Warming has historically been a
    boon to mankind. Hysterics from the scammers have children freaking
    out in school, propaganda in large scope makes for bigger funds
    to “fight it”. It does take one’s breath away if nothing else
    when considering the large amount of money large lies can bring in.
    “The sky is falling, the sky is falling” we have heard it all before
    in many forms. The pity is that thee are so many dishonest people
    elected to government today and put there by dishonest interests.

    To think that the free press used to be there to expose wrong doers,
    and now are complict and neck deep in dishonest conduct.

  5. IceStar permalink
    December 6, 2009 12:28 am

    A lot of people are about to become multibillionaires on “green” products and carbon trading. BO and GE have a vested interest in the success of the Climate Scam; GE because they have gambled heavily on selling their products and BO having committed cash as well as many campaign promises to ethanol producers, and investors who will be making money at the expense of the American people.

    I am most certainly in favor of reducing pollution, recycling, reusing, and being a good steward of Earth, I also want to see more nuclear power plants, hydrogen fuel cell cars, and a bankrupt Muslim world.

    I am not in favor of the One World Government mentality of the BO administration, nor will I stand still while he bankrupts my country to bring about his plan of “redistribution of wealth”. And make no mistake THAT is what this Climate Change/ Global Warming is all about.

    None of those idiots actually believes we are responsible for the climate changing. The Lesser Dryad is a good example of cooling and warming that happened, rapidly and without the assistance of humanity.

  6. Andrew permalink
    December 6, 2009 1:03 am

    In science the burden of proof is on the theory.

    The theory must provide the proof.

    If the theory makes a prediction, which it must to not simply be a hypothesis, and the prediction is wrong then the theory is discarded.

    That is part of the scientific method.

    The AGW theory predicts that CO2 causes global warming.

    CO2 is higher now then it was in 1998.

    Average global temperature has been declining since 1998

    The prediction made by the theory is wrong therefore the AGW theory must be discarded.

    QED.

    It is called the scientific method. It only takes one wrong result to discard a theory.

    ‘No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.’ Albert Einstein

    Please see also:

    scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climategate.html

    For a satirical look at the climategate computer programming:

    Anthropogenic Global Warming Virus Alert.

    http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i64103

  7. December 6, 2009 6:11 am

    Follow. The. Money.

  8. Freeme permalink
    December 6, 2009 12:42 pm

    Maybe the experiments with ‘weather modification’ systems by aircraft going on across the planet deemed it necessary to switch title from ‘global warming’ to ‘cooling’? Perhaps the ‘modification programs’ seem to be producing colder weather…or maybe God has a sense of humor?

    …as old Al said, “cooling is part of global warming’. Yeah right…and I bet he believes Polar Bears are extinct too huh? uh…yeah…I think he does, even after the stats provide facts that polar population as tripled in the past few decades.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 26 other followers