The climate war is over: China won

Duggan Flanakin October 10th, 2023 @ CFACT

Michael Mann, creator of the debunked hockey stick graph, in 2021 published a book entitled The New Climate War: The Fight to Take Back Our Planet. His thesis was that climate-altering fossil fuel companies, right-wing plutocrats, and petrostates are the enemies of humanity and (by omission) that nature has no significant role in climate change.

Mann’s thesis seems to be that an army of activists who condemn the Industrial Revolution can defeat the desires of Chinese, Russian, Indian, and pan-African people who want the benefits from using fossil fuels and create a utopian world powered solely by renewable energy.

This thesis does not hold up.

But let’s start with the first premise – that the desires of billions of people for cheap energy can be fully supplied by 2050 using only wind, solar, and geothermal (but not nuclear or hydro). It implies that all nations are ready, willing, and able to stop jockeying for power and influence and gather around the Maypole to sing Kum-Ba-Yah.

Mann must otherwise want us to believe a majority of Earth’s people are so concerned about the long-term future of the planet that they will willingly forego cheap energy, affordable housing, and the freedom to travel and even depopulate an overcrowded–by green standards–world.

For decades, European and American (and dependent) governments have paid lip service and even enacted economy-crippling laws and mandates to placate the Michael Manns of the world. The rich can always afford, it seems, to dabble in fads or impose mandates on others that do not really affect their lives at all. We saw plenty of that during the COVID pandemic.

But the worldwide revolt against this foolishness will very likely only grow larger as people awaken to the fact that real wars continue, with devastating consequences. People may realize that not every hurricane, rainstorm, or lightning strike is their fault. They may believe food, clothing, and shelter are much more important than bowing to the whims of naysayers – and to the Chinese.

The European revolt may have started in Italy with the election of Giorgia Meloni as Prime Minister. Her Brothers of Italy party still agrees to “combat the threat of climate change,” but adds the heretical comment that, “We will not achieve these aims by harming the economy or through an exclusively state-led approach. We need to harness the expertise and creativity of businesses and entrepreneurs,” the very people Mann blames.

For the first time in recent memory, there are political debates in Germany, the United Kingdom, and even France, and politicians are toning down their frenetic drive toward energy poverty and political irrelevance.

While Chancellor Olaf Scholz in May announced Germany would contribute 2 billion euros of taxpayer money to the Green Climate Fund, by July, the headlines were that he was “squeezing environmentalists out of his government.”

Meanwhile, the Christian Social Union/Christian Democratic Union alliance led by Friedrich Merz has made “fighting the environmental agenda” its top priority. Recent elections in Hesse and Bavaria saw populist parties take seats away from Scholz’s Social Democrats and his Green and Free Democrat coalition partners. Ordinary Germans are voting against the climate war.

In the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak just “tore up” the Tory strategy for meeting UN- and EU-mandated climate targets by rolling back several pro-green measures, including bans on petrol and diesel vehicles and new gas boilers. Many believe Rishi acted to counter the Labour Party, which remains committed to green radicalism, and win votes from economy-minded Britons.

Sunak, whose move was criticized by fellow Tories, says his nation is “stuck between two extremes” on the climate issue. “If we continue down this path,” he said, “we risk losing the consent of the British people.”

French President Emmanuel Macron earlier this year called for a moratorium on new environmental regulations and just last month argued that the “green transition” should focus on providing incentives rather than imposing outright obligations. “We want an ecology that is accessible and fair, an ecology that leaves no one without a solution,” and not punitive, he added.

Still, France, like most other European nations, is committing billions of euros to various climate initiatives and still exerting pressure on companies and individuals to purchase unwanted heat pumps to replace oil- and gas-fired boilers.

In the U.S., President Joe Biden early on proclaimed climate change as the nation’s greatest threat, and even after Russia invaded Ukraine, Biden declared that global warming is “the single most existential threat to humanity we have ever faced, including nuclear weapons.” That his policies still reflect that strange position is evidenced by his cancellation in September of oil and gas leases in Alaska and offshore.

While his European counterparts stray from dogma, Biden — like a Moses held up on each side by John Kerry and Al Gore — is standing firm. But despite the posturing, even a diminished Biden ought to know the climate war is over.

China won.

Yet China’s massive victory, punctuated by its commitment to coal for its own economy and to controlling the market for almost all the components for renewable energy deployment, may well be pyrrhic, as its economy teeters on collapse.

The Diplomat reports that exports from China fell by an unprecedented 14.5 percent year-on-year in July 2023, while imports also fell by 12.4 percent – the worst performance since the onset of the COVID pandemic in February 2020.

Chinese industrial production rose by only 3.7 percent in July (from July 2022), and China’s retail sector growth was just 2.5 percent. Youth unemployment in China was estimated at 21.3 percent, and the Hong Kong stock market index had fallen by 20 percent since January. Even China’s housing market was stagnant.

China’s economic woes, however, have not slowed its massive military buildup to an official defense budget in 2022 of $230 billion but unofficially $60 billion higher. China’s military budget grew about 10 percent a year from 2000 through 2016 and has remained at about 7 percent annual growth since then.

The Chinese have long claimed hegemony over the entire South China Sea and lands bordering the sea, a position disputed by almost all its neighbors. Artificial islands and military installations in the South China Sea threaten trade routes used by Taiwan, the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam, India, and Australia.

Treating China as an ally (and savior) in the climate war has left U.S. politicians blind to any Chinese threat, and, according to experts, has left the U.S. and its allies increasingly powerless to deny and suppress future Chinese aggression in East Asia.

A recent article in Foreign Policy states that “technology diffusion, growing global challenges, and antiquated force design have eroded the United States’ military edge against China.” China today has the world’s largest navy, army, rocket force, civilian fleet, and industrial base – that builds new ships and missiles at more than twice the U.S. pace.

Meanwhile, the U.S. is bogged down in Ukraine, and Iran-supported Hamas just started a war with Israel. With climate, not defense or containment, as the U.S. focus, China is free to roam.

Only the foolish would ignore the urgent to focus on the mirage of importance now placed on punishing both the West and 600 million Africans without electricity by dancing to Mann’s tune.

A version of this article originally appeared at Town Hall

Author

 

Duggan Flanakin is a Senior Policy Analyst with the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow. A former Senior Fellow with the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Mr. Flanakin authored definitive works on the creation of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and on environmental education in Texas. A brief history of his multifaceted career appears in his book, "Infinite Galaxies: Poems from the Dugout."

What Michael Mann’s ‘Hockey Stick’ Graph Gave to UN Climate Fraud

January 5, 2018 by John O'Sullivan and Norm Kalmanovich

As Penn State climate professor, Michael Mann faces certain defeat in his libel suit against Dr Tim Ball, we examine why climate alarmism needed Mann’s notorious graph to bolster their claims of human-caused climate catastrophe.

Canadian climate researcher, Norm Kalmanovich, reminds us that an enormous historical event that undermines the idea that modern industrial emissions of CO2 dangerously impact climate, is the Little Ice Age (LIA).

This period of considerable cooling occurred during the period 1645–1715. At that time there was a period of low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum. Michael Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ graph (above) made the very cold LIA ‘disappear.’ Kalmanovich notes: “What everyone has left out is the reason why it was necessary to fabricate a temperature proxy that would eliminate the Little Ice Age.”.........To Read More.....


‘Hockey Stick’ Climate Change Enforcer Checked Hard in Canadian Case

by James Mosher Thursday, August 10, 2017

 

The Penn State University climate scientist known for his “hockey stick” computer model and hair-trigger litigiousness has suffered a stiff check within the Canadian court arena. According to a story on the educational website Principia Scientific International, Dr. Michael Mann is defying court instructions to turn over data used in creating the model, whose upward-pointing blade is supposed to prove the reality of global warming. The effect is produced using cherry-picked data, the article says. 

Mann’s refusal came during a libel trial he brought against Dr. Tim Ball, a climatologist based in Canada. Though Ball is the defendant, the fact that Mann is defying the court means Ball has the right to pursue punitive sanctions against Mann for (among other things) acting with criminal intent when using public money to commit climate-data fraud.............To Read More....

Mann's Hockey Stick "Whitewash"

How Many Constitute 97%?

By Rich Kozlovich

In order to have clarity on any subject we first need it defined. From the beginning The High Priest of the Church of the Warming Globe, Al Gore, proclaimed in Pontifical confidence - "The science is settled"! We have been told from the beginning that "97% of scientists agree" that mankind's introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere is warming the globe so dramatically we only had months before we reached the tipping point of no return, therefore "we can't wait", we must act now.

The first thing that struck me about the phrase "97% of scientists agree" was they didn't claim 97% of "all" scientists agree. That should have triggered this question in everyone's mind.

How many constitute 97%?

The number of scientists should have been of more concern than the percentage of scientists. Why? There's a reason statistics is call the arcane science. If there was anything that generates more logical fallacies I don’t know what it is, because you can make statistics say anything you like if you leave important things out.

In July of 2012 Barry Woods wrote an article entitled, "What else did the ‘97% of scientists ’say?" he asks:

"I wonder just how many politicians, environmentalists or scientists who use the phrase ‘97% of scientists’ (or those who more carefully use ‘active climate scientists’) to give weight to their arguments regarding climate change to the public, have any idea of the actual source of this soundbite?”

He goes on to say: 

“Perhaps a few may say the ‘Doran Survey’, which is the one of the most common references for this ‘97% of active climate scientists’ phrase. In fact, the Doran EoS paper merely cites a MSc thesis for the actual source of this 97% figure and the actual survey.”…. “The Doran paper has been criticised by many sceptics in the past, where a survey of 10,256 with 3146 respondents was whittled down to 75 out of 77 “expert” ‘active climate researchers’ (ACR) to give the 97% figure, based on just two very simplistic (shallow) questions that even the majority of sceptics might agree with. Lawrence Soloman made one of many critiques of the Doran Paper here and offers a very good summary, some other reviews here, here and here”

Let’s take a look at this. The 97% figure they tout is in reality the views of just 75 out of 77 scientists of unknown scientific discipline. Originally a survey was sent to 10,265 scientists - a credible number - but this is where the story starts to get interesting - only 3,146 responded. It would appear that right from the very beginning they lost approximately 60% of “all” scientists by not responding.  I think it isn't unreasonable to presume they didn't respond because they didn't agree with the basic premise of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) that mankind was responsible. That leaves 3,146 to make up that 97% figure. Right? Well, actually no, and the story of the fabled 97% gets even better.

Now we need to ask: What did all those 3,146 scientists have to say? We don’t know! Why? Because they apparently didn’t like what almost all of them had to say since the number of “acceptable” responders was whittled down from 3,146 to 77.

Remember they lost approximately 60% of “scientists” right from the get go, and now they’ve dumped another 3,069 leaving 77, and only 75 agreed. Think about this. The percentage of scientists who actually agree (using their own base of 10,265) is only approximately .075%. One might ask why they allowed two “deniers”, or at the very least two not entirely on board with AGW? If they published a claim of 100% even the Warmists would have laughed at them.

There are a number of things we take away from this. This mythical figure of 97% of scientists isn’t even 97 scientists and consensus isn’t science, it’s politics and if you “check out the history of science…you will find that scientific discovery is generally made by ignoring the ‘consensus..’  We know the world officially stopped warming 18 years ago in spite of the fact CO2 levels have risen - a rise and fall has been going on all through the Earth's history - and currently only constitutes .037% of our atmosphere, of which humanities contribution to that number is infinitesimally small - we've passed virtually every tipping point they touted and the world’s still here - the oceans haven't risen, the poles haven't melted and all the models predicting a warming disaster have failed or are failing.

 

The Hockey Stick Graph has been shown to be so seriously flawed it has been called fraudulent, and since he lost his SLAPP suit against scientist Tim Ball in Canada he faces “Massive counterclaims, in excess of $10 million, have just been filed against climate scientist Michael Mann after lawyers affirmed that the former golden boy of global warming alarmism had sensationally failed in his exasperating three-year bid to sue skeptic Canadian climatologist, Tim Ball. Door now wide open for criminal investigation into Climategate conspiracy.”  

 

Dr. Tim Ball used, what's called in Canada the Truth Defense, also known as the Scorched Earth Defense. All Mann had to do was to "hand over those “hockey stick” r-squared correlation coefficient numbers" to demonstrate the validity of his work.  Why didn't he in Canada and is apparently failing to do so in his SLAPP suit against Steyn here in America?

 

As for the statement that "97% of scientists agree", we can now confidently say that figure along with everything else the warmists have presented is so seriously flawed they can be ignored with impunity.  It's clear from their own figures there are only .075% of "some" scientists polled who think mankind is destroying the Earth with carbon dioxide emissions and the only thing that will prevent it is to destroy our modern industrial society, return to nature and live short miserable lives.  And many of the world’s leaders think this is a good idea!  

Did I ever mention in the past you can’t fix stupid? Which in this case couples corruption and insanity!

Speak loudly and carry a busted hockey stick

By Walter Starck

The average temperature for the Earth, or any region or even any specific place is very difficult to determine with any accuracy.  At any given time surface air temperatures around the world range over about 100°C. Even in the same place they can vary by nearly that much seasonally and as much as 30°C or more in a day. Weather stations are relatively few and located very irregularly. Well maintained stations with good records going back a century or more can be counted on one’s fingers. Even then only maximum and minimum temperatures or ones at a few particular times of day are usually available.  Maintenance, siting, and surrounding land use also all have influences on the temperatures recorded.  To Read More…..

Observations From the Back Row, 3-30-11

By Rich Kozlovich

Earth Hour may be losing steam as novelty wears off
More Canadian municipalities are pledging to power down Saturday for Earth Hour, but an expert says interest in the event may already be fizzling. Earth Hour has "done a great job of capturing the imagination of an awful lot of people around the world" to raise awareness of climate change issues, said Mark . But "just more of the same gets old fast," he said Friday, noting most marketing campaigns will fade after a few years without something new to draw the public's attention…..The challenge now, he said, "is going to be how to sustain, deepen and broaden the momentum of support for climate change-related policies, practices and behaviours."

My Take - Is it possible that people finally realize that this whole thing is a load of horsepucky? True, it captured everyone’s imagination and tickled the fancy of the general public….but did it really do anything worthwhile. Yes, it did! It made people who really are interested, in this and other issues, look to see what the facts really are and they weren’t impressed. That is why it is waning. Once all that warm and fuzzy stuff wears off, the part of society that is fickle, easily led, misinformed and uninformed simply stops paying attention. As for his statement that; The challenge now, he said, "is going to be how to sustain, deepen and broaden the momentum of support for climate change-related policies, practices and behaviours’. The real challenge for these people is to keep some of the people who promoted this stuff (at taxpayer expense) from going to jail. Oh, I’m sure they will find another gimmick to cloud the public’s minds, but as time goes by it may not be as easy as it was a few years ago.

Clean energy’s junk economics
The oxymoron-ish nature of a “left-wing think tank” is on display in the Center for American Progress’ latest pitch for a so-called “clean energy standard”….. What we do know — and this is undisputed — is that electricity from wind and solar sources is so expensive that without government subsidies, it would not exist, let alone compete with fossil fuels. At a Senate hearing last week, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) asked a “clean energy” venture capitalist: “If it wasn’t for the credits you’re receiving, would you be in business?” The answer was no, according to Climatewire. CAP admits as much in its report, citing the success of several “clean energy” welfare programs.

Society has been lied to for so long on this issue that they haven’t been able to connect the dots until now….thanks to the internet. If some economic plan was worth exploring it wouldn’t need government grants to become reality. Businessmen would already be doing it, competing with it, making themselves a bunch money and hiring employees who would in turn get their share of the pie that is commonly known as wages and benefits. And if they wished to invest in the companies they could then become owners. And that is the system they wish to overturn?

Global Warming’s Hockey Schtick! There He Goes Again: Mann Claims His Hockey Stick was Affirmed by the NAS
Spinmeister Michael Mann has fired off a reply to the editor of a newspaper which published an article critical of his work, again claiming his hockey stick graph, one of the most thoroughly discredited papers of the modern age, was affirmed by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS): "...the National Academy of Sciences, affirmed my research findings in an exhaustive independent review published in June 2006 .."

The NAS report did nothing of the sort, and in fact validated all of the significant criticisms of McIntyre & McKitrick (M&M) and the Wegman Report:……..Mann uses the 5 rules of propaganda in his defense, including the rule of orchestration: endlessly repeating the same messages in different variations and combinations.

Here are five basic rules of propaganda, courtesy of Norman Davies in his extraordinary book "Europe: A History":

• The rule of simplification: reducing all data to a simple confrontation between 'Good and Bad', 'Friend and Foe'.
• The rule of disfiguration: discrediting the opposition by crude smears and parodies.
• The rule of transfusion: manipulating the consensus values of the target audience for one's own ends.
• The rule of unanimity: presenting one's viewpoint as if it were the unanimous opinion of all right-thinking people: draining the doubting individual into agreement by the appeal of star-performers, by social pressure, and by 'psychological contagion'.
• The rule of orchestration: endlessly repeating the same messages in different variations and combinations.

My Take - In a previous post dealing with Mann’s lawsuit against a scientist who criticized his work (interesting action for a guy who says his work shouldn’t be dragged into the courts by the Attorney General of Virginia) I asked if he really believed in his discredited work. Apparently this is the answer. This kind of reminds me of Clinton who said that it depended on how you defined the word “it” if he lied under oath. This really is the day of Orwellian “newspeak”.

###

Observations From the Back Row

By Rich Kozlovich

“It’s For the Children!” New ad portrays GOP attack on EPA as assault on babies

With several key votes set for next week on the GOP’s ongoing assault on the Environmental Protection Agency, this new ad gives us a hint on how the left intends to respond — by portraying the GOP push as an assault on children.

So opposition to regulation of the gas we all breathe out is equivalent to feeding babies arsenic. There is no lie the Warmists will not sink to. But their entire case is built on dishonesty so we should not be too surprised. Global warming has long ceased to be a scientific debate. It is now just a Fascist lunge for power on the part of the Green/Left -- John Ray

The ad will run for a week on D.C. cable, suggesting the target audience is Beltway elites and that its goal is to frame the Dem response in Congress.

They claim that; “The Clean Air Act prevented 160,000 early deaths last year, including 230 infants, yet Congress is busy working to prevent the EPA from updating and enforcing standards that would limit toxic pollutants that endanger the public health,” Mike Lux, President of American Family Voices, says. “If we don’t curb those pollutants, they’ll end up in our air, water and food and eventually in our children. Congress needs to let the EPA do its job to protect public health.”

The EPA is an out of control rogue agency that must be dealt with.
This link will take you to three articles that outline the problem properly without the emotional hand wringing.  It also outlines what is going on in Congress over how to deal with it. RK

My Take - I am completely convinced from EPA's past claims that they can't for a minute substantiate those figures.  The minute that you hear this phrase, It's For the Children", you had better perk up your ears and sharpen your wits, because some greenie group or their handmaidens at the EPA or government are about to take advantage of all of us. Either they are introducing some new piece of legislation based on junk science that will undermine the economy and destroy individual rights, or they are attempting to maintain legislative authority over something they shouldn't have gotten in the first place. But one thing is for sure. They don’t have the science on their side or they wouldn’t be working this con.  Below are some articles that get to the root of this issue. 

Desperate Climate Scientists File Second Lawsuit Against Top Skeptic
Mann, the infamous creator of the now discredited ‘hockey stick’ graph was once the darling of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a tax hungry government funded organization that blames mankind for raising global temperatures by 0.7 degrees during the 20th Century. Now he is desperate to hit back at his critics with the help of Big Green's immense financial resources. Below we examine the shady background of Professor Mann and explain what Ball must do to defeat this latest legal challenge.

The ascent of Mann
Climate Realists has an interesting article (see link below) that looks at the extraordinary rise to prominence of the hockeystickmeister, Michael Mann. This is one of the angles of the hockey stick story that is still something of a mystery - how did such an obscure scientist, one who had just completed his PhD, get to be lead author on the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC?

Mann’s Ph.D ‘Rushed Through’
Instantly, Mann was then plucked from obscurity and appointed not just a contributing author for Chapters 7,8,12 of the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (1998-00) but also Lead Author for Chapter 2. And with no track record whatsoever in this field, Mann now with tree ring data thrust into his hand, famously carved out his infamous ‘hockey stick’ graph.

Headline Story: Did a Secret Climate Deal Launch the Hockey Stick Fakery? By John O’Sullivan, guest post at Climate Realists
…………."So what miracle turned this problematic researcher’s life around?
If miracles happened for Mann, they came in the form of Barry Saltzman. You see, this struggling student’s career was transformed the moment Saltzman became his Ph.D adviser. Only after Saltzman applied his influence were Mann’s lofty credentials “rushed through.” Mann then turned himself into a makeshift tree ring counter, and overnight became the iconic figure in the IPCC Third Report (2001). The rest is history, as they say."........If my name were Ken Cuccinelli I would want to chase down one or two grant and funding sources; with proof of collusion a case for fraud holds water. That's treble damages and Virginia’s taxpayers will be sitting $1.5 million better off plus expenses.

My Take - Normally I wouldn’t pay any attention to something such as this because on the surface it appears to be nothing except an ad hominem attack…normally that is. Except there seems to be a pattern here. I have already linked the article about, The Strange Case of Sari Kovats, which places another unknown, unqualified and unpublished “scientist” in a position of enormous responsibility. Why? Is it because qualified scientists wouldn’t have gone along with this fraud? Maybe, except scientific fraud is so common I doubt that they couldn’t find someone corrupt enough to go along. Perhaps this was easier though. Take someone with nothing to lose and make them special, make them important and famous. Someone easy to convince. Someone who perhaps really didn’t have what it takes to be those things on their own.

Dr. John Costello writes, “Climategate has shattered that myth (the myth of global warming). It gives us a peephole into the work of the scientists investigating possibly the most important issue ever to face mankind. Instead of seeing large collaborations of meticulous, careful, critical scientists, we instead see a small team of incompetent cowboys, abusing almost every aspect of the framework of science to build a fortress around their ‘old boys club’, to prevent real scientists from seeing the shambles of their research. Most people are aghast that this could have happened; and it is only because climate science exploded from a relatively tiny corner of academia into a hugely funded industry in a matter of mere years that the perpetrators were able to get away with it for so long.”

What fascinates me about Mann’s lawsuit is that he has to know that when you sue someone…everyone is deposed…that means he has to come forth with all the stuff he has been refusing to come forward with. You must answer the questions asked. Which makes me wonder; does he believe that his work isn’t fraudulent? Does he actually believe that his work can stand up to honest peer review? Does he honestly believe that he can win? Is this a case of desperate delusion?  It does seem clear though that "he knows even less about law than he does about science."

Many ‘scientists’ are going down the tubes over this, and some of them will pay for their fraud financially and it would be nice to see some end up in jail. After all, fraud isn’t just a civil offence, it is a criminal offense. That would help with the fact that “corruption among scientists is actually quite common. According to official statistics 40 percent of scientists have witnessed such conduct but do not report it.”   As for Cuccinelli's civil case against Mann, that could end up being a criminal case;

 "The Evidence Shows Probable Cause" - If anyone doubts Cuccinelli’s just cause then I suggest they read the Wegman Report, those leaked Climategate e-mails plus the British investigation known as the Oxburgh Committee Report. 

The IPCC has been shown to be thoroughly corrupt; but then again it is part of the United Nations, so what can we expect?  Mann's pinnacle work, The Hockey Stick Graph, has been shown to be fraudulent, and it seems impossible to believe that this was anything less that deliberate, and Hansen’s work was shown to have easily discoverable mathematical “errors” .  So would someone please explain to me why people still quote them?

Let's get this right once and for all.  Scientific integrity is an oxymoron, we can no longer trust these people.  We need to start questioning everything they say and do; especially if it involves environmental issues. Especially since we are paying them for their expertise.  The least we should expect is that it would not be corrupt; but then again they do so much work for the EPA; so what can we expect?    RK

_______________________Quote of the Week_________________________

Phil Jones' Feb 21, 2005 response to Warwick Hughes' request for his raw climate data: "We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?" Looking for things that might be wrong with a given conclusion is of course central to science, its called peer review.  If something isn't peer reviewed it isn't science. Warmism is junk science and junk science cannot stand such scrutiny. Paraphrased quote from John Ray.

###

Ken Cuccinelli v. 810 academics

Academic freedom is not a license to commit fraud

by Paul Driessen

Reprinted with permission.  I would like to thank Paul for his generosity!

Carr and 809 other Virginia scientists and academics signed a petition launched by the activist Union of Concerned Scientists, protesting Commonwealth Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s investigation of former University of Virginia professor Michael Mann. The American Association of University Professors likewise opposes Cuccinelli, who is seeking documents from UVA, to determine whether there are grounds to prosecute Mann for violating the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, by presenting false or misleading information in support of applications for state-funded research.

Carr claims Cuccinelli is attempting to “drown out” scientific debate.” Others have accused the AG of conducting a “witch hunt,” engaging in “McCarthyite” tactics, and “restricting academic freedom.”

It’s time to clear a few things up.

Mann is the former UVA professor, whose “hockey stick” temperature chart was used to promote claims that “sudden” and “unprecedented” manmade global warming “threatens” human civilization and Earth itself. The hockey stick was first broken by climatologists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, who demonstrated that a Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were clearly reflected in historic data across the globe, but redacted by Mann. Analysts Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick later showed that Mann’s computer program generated hockey-stick patterns regardless of what numbers were fed into it – even random telephone numbers; that explained why the global warming and cooling of the last millennium magically disappeared in Mann’s “temperature reconstruction.”

The Climategate emails revealed another deliberate “trick” that Mann used to generate a late twentieth-century temperature jump: he replaced tree ring data with thermometer measurements at the point in his timeline when the tree data no longer fit his climate disaster thesis. During his UVA tenure, he employed other statistical tricks to generate an accelerated warming trend of 2-4.5 degrees F per decade (1-2.5 deg C), as shown in his 2002-2003 publications. That extrapolates to as much as 45 degrees F per century!

Not surprisingly, he refused to share his data, computer codes and methodologies with skeptical scientists. Perhaps worse, Climategate emails indicate that Mann and others conspired to co-opt and corrupt the very scientific process that Carr asserts will ultimately condemn or vindicate them.

This behavior certainly gives Cuccinelli “probable cause” for launching an investigation. As the AG notes, “The same legal standards for fraud apply to the academic setting that apply elsewhere. The same rule of law, the same objective fact-finding process, will take place.” Some witch hunt.

There is simply no room in science, academia or public policy for manipulation, falsification or fraud. Academic freedom does not confer a right to engage in such practices, and both attorneys general and research institutions have a duty to root them out, especially in the case of climate change research.

Work by Mann and other alarmist scientists is not merely some theoretical exercise that can be permitted to “play itself out” over many years, if and when the “academic arena” gets around to it. These assertions of climate crisis are being used right now by Congress, states, courts and the Environmental Protection Agency to justify draconian restrictions on energy use and greenhouse emissions. They would shackle our freedoms and civil rights and hammer our jobs, economy, health, welfare and living standards.

If the science is wrong – or far worse, if it is manipulated, fabricated, fraudulent and covered up – then grave damage will be done to our nation, liberties and families, before the truth gets its boots on.

As to “scientific debate” over global warming, there has been virtually none in the academic arena. The science is viewed as “settled,” debate has been squelched, and those who seek to initiate debate are attacked, vilified, harassed and shipped off to academic Siberia.

Dr. Patrick Michaels, another former UVA climate researcher, was fired as Virginia State Climatologist by then-Governor Tim Kaine for raising inconvenient questions and facts on climate science. When Greenpeace demanded access to Michaels’ emails, UVA promptly acceded – before contesting AG Cuccinelli’s request for Mann’s.

The 810 protesters and their UCS and AAUP consorts were silent. Their principles and objections do not seem to apply to shrill activist groups infringing on the academic and scientific freedom of “politically incorrect” researchers, even when there is no suggestion of dishonesty. Other “skeptical” climate researchers have met with similar fates. The pungent scent of hypocrisy fills the air.

No surprise there. The massive US government climate change research gravy train alone totaled some $9 billion in grants during 2009, courtesy of hardworking taxpayers. IPCC, EU & Company climate grants – plus billions more for renewable energy research – fatten the larder still further. Now that money, prestige and power are threatened.

Climategate and other revelations about the lack of evidence for the “manmade climate disaster” thesis have sent belief in AlGorean gloom and doom plummeting. Global warming consistently comes in dead last on any list of environmental concerns. Three-fourths of Americans are unwilling to spend more than $100 a year to prevent climate change. China , India and other developing nations properly refuse to sign a carbon-cutting economic suicide pact.

The public is rightly concerned that in-house investigations by Penn State University (Mann’s current institution), East Anglia University (home of Phil Jones and the Climategate emails) and the IPCC have the patina of a Tom Sawyer whitewash. Independent investigations like Cuccinelli’s are absolutely essential, to ferret out fraud and misconduct – which may be rare but must be dealt with when it happens.

Dr. Andrew Wakefield falsified studies to create a connection between autism and trace mercury in vaccines against measles, mumps and rubella. Britain stripped him of his right to practice medicine. But meanwhile, a lingering stench remains over double standards; World Wildlife Fund press releases and rank speculation masquerading as peer-reviewed science; computer models enshrined as “proof” of looming climate disasters; and billions being squandered on research purporting to link global warming to nearly every malady and phenomenon known to man.

We the taxpayers are paying for this work. We the people will pay the price – in soaring energy bills, fewer jobs, lower living standards and lost freedoms – for draconian energy and emission laws enacted in the name of saving the planet.

We have a right to insist that the research be honest and aboveboard. That the work products stay in the public domain, available for scrutiny. That researchers share their data, computer codes and analytical methodologies, and engage in robust debate with skeptics and critics. That those who violate these fundamental precepts forfeit their access to future grants. And that our tax dollars no longer fund bogus acne-and-climate-change studies and alarmist propaganda. (Talk about budget cutting opportunities!)

It’s certainly understandable that scientists, academics, eco-activists and the AAUP and UVA would line up behind Mann and against Cuccinelli. There’s a lot of power, prestige and cash on the line. But it is essential that the attorney general and law-abiding citizens insist on transparency, integrity, credibility and accountability in the climate change arena.

We should support what Ken Cuccinelli is doing – and demand that Eric Holder and other state AGs take similar action.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (http://www.cfact.org/) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power - Black Death.

Comments will not be accepted that are rude, crude, stupid or smarmy. Nor will I allow ad hominem attacks or comments from anyone who is "Anonymous”.



###