Monday, November 30, 2009

An Old (But Important) Saw

Several times last year -- specifically, here, here, here, and here -- I wrote about some of the reasons I am skeptical when it comes to global warming. Since then, three whole seasons have come and gone and deposited us back into that time of year when the earth always cools…and that passage of time has served up even more reasons why we should doubt the prophets of warming.

In the Northeast, Manhattan’s June temperatures averaged 3.7 degrees below normal while Boston’s averaged 4.7 below. That made it Boston’s coolest June in 106 years and second coolest in 137.

In the Southwest, it was the first time in 96 years that Phoenix went 15 straight days in June without reaching 100 degrees. And L.A.’s temperatures that month averaged 5 degrees below normal while Yucca Valley’s averaged 8½ below.

In Yonkers, NY, it snowed in the second week of July.

For the U.S. as a whole, this October was the third coldest since they began keeping records.

North of our border, the November snowfall record for Whistler, B.C. had already been broken a week before Thanksgiving, with more than 14 feet accumulated.

And south of the Equator, New Zealand and Australia both experienced prolonged record cold during their autumn and winter.

But the most jaw-dropping reason for doubt comes from recently discovered emails between scientists who are considered to be among the world’s top authorities on global warming. In those emails, which were uncovered by hackers, the scientists communicate about concealing evidence that contradicts global warming. They discuss the need to “hide the decline” in temperatures that their data reveals.

And they discuss ways to avoid complying with requests for their data that might be made under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, or under similar foreign laws. They even toy with the idea of contending that their work is not subject to such laws because it relates to the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change; in other words, the scientists have considered making an official claim that no nation’s laws apply to their work because it serves an international rather than national purpose.

Phil Jones, head of the Climactic Research Unit (CRU) at England’s University of East Anglia, wrote to an American colleague: “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.” In another email, he wrote to three American colleagues: “I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!” One of those colleagues (Michael Mann of Penn State) sent an email to the CRU’s Tim Osborn stating that he was sending results which should not be shared with others because they supported global warming’s skeptics.

With the global warming summit right around the corner, you might think that all of this would cause the world’s leaders to move slowly before they propose that sweeping changes be made to address a “problem” that is not even known to exist. But you would be wrong. By and large, world leaders (including our own) have barely acknowledged either the contradictory data or the email scandal, other than to downplay them with arrogant indifference.

With all the indications of cover-up and fraud and of manipulation and hiding of evidence, you also might think that the MSM would cover this story if for no other reason than its sensational allure. But you would be wrong again. They have barely mentioned it, because doing so would work against their political goals.

What we have here is a threefer: a scientific scandal, political scandal, and journalistic scandal all rolled into one.

Update, 12/3/09: I published this post three days ago. As of yesterday, which was 12 days after the the email story first broke, it still had not been mentioned a single time on any of the broadcast news programs of ABC, NBC, or CBS (according to the Business & Media Institute). That is a big deal because more people get their news from those programs than from the cable ones.

No comments: