Global warming conspiracy collapsing

If you keep up with climate science news, you may have seen this story: Leaks show group's climate efforts
Leaked documents from a prominent conservative think tank show how it sought to teach schoolchildren skepticism about global warming and planned other behind-the-scenes tactics using millions of dollars in donations from big corporate names.

More than $14 million of the money used by the Chicago-based Heartland Institute would come from one anonymous man, according to the documents prepared for a meeting of the group's board.

Heartland is one of the loudest voices denying human-caused global warming, hosting the largest international scientific conference of skeptics on climate change. Several of its documents were leaked this week to the news media, showing the planning and money behind its efforts. Heartland said some of the documents weren't accurate, but declined to be specific.
These documents were stolen in an attempt to balance out the Climategate email scandal, which showed climate scientists were covering up data that was negative to their cause. The charitable description of events is that they "know" there is global warming, but some of the science isn't settled and they didn't want to give man-made climate change skeptics any ammunition.

The Climategate information was an Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and the material was collected for the purpose of releasing it to the public. When climate scientists blocked the release, someone working inside the university released them to the public. In the Heartland case, the information was stolen. Additionally, we now learn that the information was stolen by a climate researcher and that he forged some documents in order to create a scandal. In other words, in an attempt to discredit climate-change skeptics, he succeeded in discrediting climate science.

Peter Gleick Admits He Obtained Fakegate Documents by ‘Deception’, Heartland Responds
Gleick, in a blog post at Huffington Port, says:

Since the release in mid-February of a series of documents related to the internal strategy of the Heartland Institute to cast doubt on climate science, there has been extensive speculation about the origin of the documents and intense discussion about what they reveal. Given the need for reliance on facts in the public climate debate, I am issuing the following statement.

At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders and the Institute’s apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original document but assumed it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with Heartland and because I was named in it.
Heartland responds with:
In his statement, Gleick claims he committed this crime because he believed The Heartland Institute was preventing a “rational debate” from taking place over global warming. This is unbelievable. Heartland has repeatedly asked for real debate on this important topic. Gleick himself was specifically invited to attend a Heartland event to debate global warming just days before he stole the documents. He turned down the invitation.

Gleick also claims he did not write the forged memo, but only stole the documents to confirm the content of the memo he received from an anonymous source. This too is unbelievable. Many independent commentators already have concluded the memo was most likely written by Gleick.
Climate science is a relatively new science and relies heavily on computer models. Research will continue, but the politicization of climate science will come to an end soon because it will become just another field of research. As social mood turns negative, people search for people to blame for their negative feelings. Sometimes scapegoats are found and sometimes society attacks legitimate problems. Whether you believe in man-made global warming (AGW) or not, climate science is very likely to become a target for three reasons. First, it is expensive. The decline in social mood weakens the economy and AGW solutions will further weaken the economy. Politically, the agenda is dead. Second, there is considerable debate over the direction of the climate. Many scientists focus on the "consensus" around man-made warming, but putting aside the fact that science relies on fact, not consensus, there are a lot of scientists who argue the Sun will overpower man's effect. Even if one agrees with AGW, one may disagree with the climate forecast and any political policies is derived from it. Third, the scandals are coming from AGW proponents. Their argument from the start has been that skeptics are lying and furthering a lie for money, paid by corporations who will lose money from AGW policies, such as the fossil fuel industry. It turns out that all the actual lies and theft were made by AGW proponents.

From an investment perspective, whether global cooling occurs or not, the fossil fuel industry has caught a break.

No comments:

Post a Comment