The Big Progressive Lie

Shamelessly stolen from America Is An Obamanation.

The Green Movement is currently at Condition Red because of the Climategate emails.

Since we’re on the topic, let me summarize Climategate in four basic easy-to-understand elements.

1. Climate scienticians conspired to exclude temperature data that contradicted Global Warming from their “climate models.”

2. The computer models were set up with a bias to show Global Warming regardless of the data that were put in.

3. Climate scienticians conspired to circumvent the peer review process by steering papers toward friendly reviewers, and plotting to remove skeptics from the peer review process.

4. Climate scienticians conspired to destroy data rather than share it with potential skeptics.

These so-called scientists behaved more like Scientology lawyers shredding incriminating documents than dispassionate, objective observers simply going where the facts led them.



Filed under Uncategorized

2 responses to “The Big Progressive Lie

  1. Barbara

    Hmmm. And how about #4? It turns out they DID destroy the files but we’re supposed to believe that when they moved to the cozy colonial, there just wasn’t room for Grandpa’s Barcalounger or all the files that were the basis for their life’s work and fortunes. Uh huh. It’s so pathetic that it makes the “Viking with the 9-iron to the rescue” story look plausible by comparison.

    Ta-ta, Phil.

  2. “Climategate” started out when there appeared on the Internet a collection of e-mails of a group of climatologists who work in the University of East Anglia in England. These documents reveal that some climatologists of international preeminence have manipulated the data of their investigations and have strongly tried to discredit climatologists who are not convinced that the increasing quantities of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are the cause of global warming.

    It is true that a majority of the scientists who study climatic tendencies in our atmosphere have arrived at the conclusion that the world’s climate is changing, and they have convinced a group of politicians, some of whom are politically powerful, of the truth of their conclusions.

    A minority, however, is skeptical. Some believe that recent data that suggest that the average temperature of the atmosphere is going up can be explained by natural variations in solar radiation and that global warming is a temporary phenomenon. Others believe that the historical evidence indicating that the temperature of the atmosphere is going up at a dangerous rate is simply not reliable.

    Such lacks of agreement are common in the sciences. They are reduced and eventually eliminated with the accumulation of new evidence and of more refined theories or even by completely new ones. Such debates can persist for a period of decades. Academics often throw invective at one another in these debates. But typically this does not mean much.

    But the case of climate change is different. If the evidence indicates that global warming is progressive, is caused principally by our industrial processes, and will probably cause disastrous changes in our atmosphere before the end of the twenty-first century, then we do not have the time to verify precisely if this evidence is reliable. Such a process would be a question of many years of new investigations. And if the alarmist climatologists are right, such a delay would be tragic for all humanity.

    The difficulty is that economic and climatologic systems are very complicated. They are not like celestial mechanics, which involves only the interaction of gravity and centrifugal force, and efforts to construct computerized models to describe these complicated systems simply cannot include all the factors that are influential in the evolution of these complicated systems.

    All this does not necessarily indicate that the alarmist climatologists are not right. But it really means that if global warming is occurring, we cannot know exactly what will be the average temperature of our atmosphere in the year 2100 and what will be the average sea level of the world’s ocean in that year.

    It also means that we cannot be confident that efforts by the industrialized countries to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will have a significant influence on the evolution of the world’s climate.

    Alas, the reduction of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would be very costly and would greatly change the lives of all the inhabitants of our planet–with the possibility (perhaps even the probability!) that all these efforts will be completely useless.

    Harleigh Kyson Jr.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s