Climate Fraud And Conspiracy

A lot of attention is being given to the story of “hacked” information from files at the Climate Research Unit as part of the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. While it is probably true that there are just as many “whacked” deniers of climate change as there are “whacked” doomsayers of the same, why is questioning what is being presented as scientific information in light of what these emails are showing being presented as much ado about nothing?

At RealClimate.org, one website used by many of the scientists promoting their theories on man-made global warming, an explanation was given a few days ago, with updates, about the email hacks.

As part of the explanation given, the piece tries to play down the event by making a comparison to other not-so-important science.

Clearly no-one would have gone to this trouble if the academic object of study was the mating habits of European butterflies.

No doubt but there is an obvious difference than simply a matter of whether the emails hacked were of any importance. I’m not so sure about what effect the study of the mating habits of European butterflies will have but I am fully aware, as are millions of other people, that when considering the entire aspect of the human impact of anthropogenic global warming, the negative impact to the lives of people is tantamount.

I could care less about the mating habits of any animal until it is being crammed down my throat with the prospects of changing my life in drastic ways. When that happens, I will speak up and demand answers and full proof. Putting people down because they want to find out this information is part of what raises even more questions honesty and integrity of global warming scientists at the Climate Research Unit.

So speaking out I will!

I’m just not buying the notion that information contained in these emails is being taken out of context. When the talk is direct about excluding scientists who don’t agree, banning a scientific journal because they don’t agree, destroying emails, refusing to share scientific evidence and refusing to comply with laws regarding information access laws, it is disingenuous to attempt to pass it all off as “taken out of context”. That’s a lame excuse that is becoming worn out.

None of us have to be educated scientists to understand what is going on. This isn’t some secret coded, scientific, cryptographic messaging we’re talking about. This is plain English, the kind we all can understand.

Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh took the time to respond somewhat to Climategate. For those who have listened to Rush for any length of time, know that he has opposed the theory that man’s influence on the climate was detrimental. He describes it from a very non-scientific perspective.

As such, I don’t believe that progress in human beings God created destroys the planet. And that’s what they are asking us to believe and have been asking us to believe for… Well, I first heard about this movement in 1979, back then it was global COOLING that was going to kill us. By 1984 it had become global warming. Basically what they’re saying is advanced lifestyles, increased standards of living, progress is killing the planet. No. That premise is something I have rejected from the get-go. I don’t think we have the ability to. But this is not science. I’m not a scientist. I’m just a guy imbued with an above-average abundance of common sense.

I’ve never been able to be convinced that driving automobiles will destroy our planet or our climate, when there are volcanoes that are far more pollutant-oriented than our automobiles are, and they’ve been going off since the beginning of time and we’re still here.

If you want to glimpse just how insignificant man is on the planet, take the time and hike to the top of a mountain sometime. Have a look around and humble yourself. You are nothing but a tiny, insignificant speck in the grand scheme of things.

But to continue with the non-scientific argument about the “hacked” emails. As I said, we don’t have to be scientists to have an understanding of what has taken place here. It’s very disturbing if you allow yourself to understand the real impact.

James Dilingpole at HumanEvents has what I believe is an excellent explanation of what the real impact of this scandal is. He gives us a list of seven of what he describes as a “variety of dubious practices, quite contrary to what might reasonably be expected of a world-renowned climate research institution lavishly funded by the UK government.”

I will list them but I suggest you follow the link and read his entire explanations of each of the seven revelations.

1. Manipulation of evidence.
2. Concealing private doubts about whether the world is really heating up.
3. Destruction of evidence.
4. Fantasizing violence against prominent climate skeptic scientists.
5. Gloating over news of the death of a prominent climate-change skeptic.
6. Attempting to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period.
7. A long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process.

These are what the “hacked” emails show us. People can spin this anyway they choose in order to avoid the truth. If this is nothing more than just “business as usual” in the academy of science and scientific research, then serious questions need to be asked in why we should rely so heavily on what science tells us?

We are in the middle of a debate that will have sweeping consequences on us as human beings. What is being proposed as part of the theory of anthropogenic global warming cuts deeply into my liberties as a free human being. It also stands to cripple and destroy economies around the world. I would be a fool to sit quietly by while somebody played with my life strings.

Now with further evidence that the entire discussion of climate change is a fraud, wrought with efforts to conspire to hide the truth, any thoughts of signing treaties and passing such laws as Cap and Trade, would be the biggest mistake anyone could make. We cannot allow this to happen.

As was pointed out, we’re not discussing the mating habits of the European butterfly. We’re talking about life altering proposals based on fraud and conspiracy.

Tom Remington