Change You Certainly Cannot Believe In .........

They used to say that bad news came in sets of three and perhaps that's true. In which case, perhaps good news comes in twos.

And today was one of those days.

To start with, there was an email from a European friend who referred me, first to a newspaper article and then to the larger book.. The latter is entitled, “The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is The Obsession with Climate Change Turning Out To Be The Most Costly Blunder in History?” and the author is one Christopher Booker. I haven’t read the book yet but I will.

What I have read though, are the revelations emerging from the University of East Anglia in England. And the emails that follow tell a very sorry tale if you care about truth and objective science.

From: Phil Jones. To: Many, November 16, 1999
"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Critics cite this as evidence that data was manipulated to mask the fact that global temperatures are falling. Prof Jones claims the meaning of "trick" has been misinterpreted

From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

(The IPCC is the UN body charged with monitoring climate change. The scientists did not want it to consider studies that challenge the view that global warming is genuine and man-made.)

From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"
Prof Trenberth appears to accept a key argument of global warming sceptics - that there is no evidence temperatures have increased over the past 10 years.

From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009

I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”

Prof Jones appears to be lobbying for the dismissal of the editor of Climate Research, a scientific journal that published papers downplaying climate change.

From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008"C

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise."

Climate change sceptics tried to use Freedom of Information laws to obtain raw climate data submitted to an IPCC report known as AR4. The scientists did not want their email exchanges about the data to be made public.

From: Michael Mann. To: Phil Jones and Gabi Hegerl (University of Edinburgh). Date: Aug 10, 2004

"Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future."

In short, these "scientists" make no attempt to hide their disdain for climate change sceptics who request more information about their work.

In fact, I've just offered snippets because there are pages and pages of this stuff. The Kool-Aid drinkers will dismiss all of this as yet another vast Right Wing Conspiracy. And if it turns out to be nothing more than that, I will profer a public retraction in a heart beat.

Now, when you add all that to the revelations in Der Spiegel, there is clearly “something rotten in the “State of Denmark” as Hamlet affirmed.

But I’m getting ahead of myself.

Closer analysis of these scientific findings reveals that 3, repeat 3, trees from a forest in Siberia were chosen for a study of the rings under their bark. Just 3. The rest of the trees perhaps did not fit the preconceptions and so they were used to toast marshmallows one presumes.

Since the lies, damned lies and statistics have peeked out from beneath the rock, there has been a scurry of activity as the wood louses of science fight each other to flee the light of day.

Leading the flight was the New York Times who harrumphed that they would not publish any content that was not meant for the public eye. One is forced to ask if they drew the same veil of propriety over the Pentagon Papers and the rest of the Watergate revelations.

More and more, it becomes clear that the whole “Global Warming” myth was dreamed up for two reasons. For a start, adoption of Kyoto or Cap and Trade and the goals of Copenhagen were designed to bring the US economy to its knees. I thank G-d once again for our Constitution because, so far at least, only the Senate can ratify treaties. Sorry Obama!

Secondly, it was designed to scare liitle kids to death. Now, who could not wish a Polar Bear well? They’re big and furry and have huge floppy paws. Aw……..

And their population is increasing. Good news for kids and bad news for Al.

There’s one thing that worries me about all this.

Can you imagine how many text books will have to be changed and how much that will cost? Or how much money have we spent on meaningless doctoral theses?

Finally, I used to live in Northern California and, twice a day, I commuted across the Golden Gate Bridge. Now, in that part of the world you get used to nuts and you get used to delays on the bridge.

This day though was special. Because there, chained to a span was Ted Danson complete with a sign that warned that the planet had only 10 more years. I wish we'd left hm there. Perhaps the odd commuter would have poked up a sponge soaked in a good Dry Creek Merlot. But, it wouldn't have been me.

Well, we’ve lasted much longer than that since that day in 1987 and you’d think that he’d be happy along with all the rest of the PCH. But, I doubt they are.

Or let me ask it another way, If the planet isn't warming, is that good news or bad?

Or, are liberals ever really happy? Or is it that only unhappy people turn to liberalism as the last resort?