Indignant Climate Alarmists Terrified Of ANY Scientific Debate
Before even thinking about squandering one hundred trillion dollars on an insane economy-collapsing Green New Deal premised upon an end-of-world climate catastrophe, let’s take a very hard look at the so-called “settled science” nonsense.
The Trump White House plans to convene a National Security Council review panel headed by Princeton emeritus professor of physics Dr. Will Happer to do exactly that.
One of the loudest, shrillest, most unsettled voices of protest against science scrutiny is emanating from Dr. Michael Mann, the author of a cobbled-together and thoroughly debunked “hockey stick” graph first used by the IPCC and Al Gore to gin up the climate Armageddon alarm.
A March 20 article co-authored by Mann and Bob Ward in The Guardian equated the planned NSC panel to Stalinist repression.
Accordingly, a great place to begin this investigation is to revisit scandalous Climategate email exchanges between members of Mann’s hockey team along with readily available public records I have previously written about in numerous Forbes and Newsmax articles.
Tom Crowley, a close Mann colleague, wrote, “I am not convinced that the ‘truth’ is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships.”
Yet friendship aside, Mann’s hockey ‘schtick’ graph co-author Raymond Bradley clearly drew the line regarding another research paper jointly published by Mann and colleague Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia.
Bradley wrote, “I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL [Geophysical Research Letters] paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year [climate] reconstruction.”
Nevertheless, Michael Mann sanctimoniously attacked Will Happer’s scientific credentials to chair the NSC’s panel because “[he] has not published any research on climate change in a reputable science journal.”
By “reputable,” Mann is obviously referring to publishers that exclusively post research papers endorsed by the Climate Crisis Cartel and its IPCC sponsors.
An email from Jones to Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports, said, “Kevin, Seems that this potential Nature [journal] paper may be worth citing, if it does say that GW [global warming] is having an effect on TC [tropical cyclone] activity.”
Jones wanted to make sure that people who supported this connection be represented in IPCC reviews, “Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital – hence my comment about the tornadoes group.”
Top cyclone expert Christopher Landsea demanded that the IPCC refute Trenberth’s scientifically unsupportable but highly publicized claim of a global warming-hurricane link following a deadly 2004 Florida storm season. Receiving no response, Landsea resigned as an invited 2007 IPCC report author.
A July 2004 communication from Phil Jones to Michael Mann marked “Highly Confidential” discussed keeping two papers published in Climate Research from being in that next IPCC report.
Jones wrote: Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is.”
Jonathan Overpeck, a coordinating lead IPCC report author, suggested, “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.”
Trenberth’s associate Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research warned in another email to Mann, “Mike, the Figure you sent is very deceptive . . . there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC . . . ”
Wigley and Trenberth suggested in another email to Mann, “If you think that [Yale professor James] Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official [American Geophysical Union] channels to get him ousted [as editor-in-chief of the Geophysical Research Letters journal].”
Writing to Phil Jones, Peter Thorne of the U.K. Met Office advised caution, saying, “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous.”
Thorne prudently observed in a separate email, “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”
Another scientist worries, ” . . . clearly, some tuning or very good luck [is] involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer.”
Still, another observed, “It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.”
One researcher foresaw some very troubling consequences, “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multi-decadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably . . . ”
Oh, Mann!
I understand your angst about where your rebounding hockey puck may wind up.
Read more at CFACT
Trackback from your site.
ron cirotto
| #
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy… We redistribute de facto the worlds wealth by climate policy”
Economist, OTTMAR EDENHOFFER, co-chair UNIPCC, climate change working group on mitigation of climate change from 2088 to 2015.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the taskof intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for the last 150 years, since the Industrial revolution”
CHRISTIANA FIGUIRES, Executive Secretary of UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change.
“No matter if the science of global warmingis all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
CHRISTINE STEWART, Minister of Environment, Canada (1997-1999).
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
These are a few of the quotes at the end of Dr Tim Balls new 121 page book, HUMAN CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING, The biggest deception in History.
If your over 21 and can read, this book should be on your bucket list. Please read the last 21 pages first before you read from the start. The last 21 pages give one an introduction to the key characters in this farce and deception of the GLOBAL WARMING movement, starting with the late Maurice Strong and of course Christine Stewart who actually signed the Kyoto accord for PM Chretienway back in 1997.
Questions!
Do you still believe that climate science is settled and that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and causing global warming ?
How confused do think our elementary school children are?
Here is a question/memo I recently posted to Canada’s current Environment Minister, Catherine McKenna.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
I feel the Canadian government is sending confusing messages to young children and adults. Here are just two examples of the many conflicting messages. Early elementary school children are introduced to the very complex chemistry of photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is an essential component for human and animal life on this planet. Carbon dioxide in the presence of sunlight becomes an integral part of our food crops and trees. Photosynthesis also creates the oxygen we breath. When the Sun is not shining all growing plants and trees give off carbon dioxide. Without carbon dioxide mankind would die.
Yet the Canadian government continually calls carbon dioxide a pollutant. A tax on carbon dioxide has now morphed into a tax on carbon pollution.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, …. its essential for life, as we currently know it, here on Earth!
THIS DICHOTOMY IS CAUSING CONFUSION BECAUSE WE HAVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CHILDREN, with the backing/coaching of their teachers, LECTURING SENATORS IN OTTAWA ON THE DANGERS OF CARBON DIOXIDE AND THE PENDING DESTRUCTION OF THE PLANET IN TEN YEARS. If you had free reign, how would you address this confusion?
Reply