Skip to comments.New Emails Reveal Fraud of Climate Science ( This is from NEWSWEEK...)
Posted on 01/27/2012 8:36:10 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Forbes reports on a release of a new batch of emails where prominent climate scientists reveal that they actively deleted protected emails in an attempt to avoid releasing evidence that the data does not support alleged man-made warming. According to the Forbes report:
Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political cause rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.
You can read the full article here.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalforestlawblog.com ...
For giving me a link to the Blog.
I know it is from November....but it is new to me!
Headline there is :
Now did News Week really have that cover?
James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.
Global Companies Keep Naysayers Who Still Reject Evidence of Climate Change
New Poll Finds Influence of the Global Warming Denial Machine Remains
NEW YORK, Aug. 5 /PRNewswire/ -- Senator Barbara Boxer, chair of the Senate's environment committee, read a report last February by 600 scientists from governments, academia, green groups and businesses in 40 countries that stated, "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal," and said there is now at least a 90 percent likelihood that the release of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels is causing longer droughts, more flood-causing downpours and worse heat waves, way up from earlier studies. Those who doubt the reality of human-caused climate change have spent decades disputing that. But Boxer figured that "with the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered." (Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20070805/NYSU002 ) But then a staffer told her that a conservative think tank long funded by ExxonMobil had offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the new report and the computer-based climate models it is based on. "I realized," Boxer tells Newsweek, "there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up." As Science Writer Sharon Begley reports in the August 13 Newsweek cover, "Global Warming is A Hoax*" (on newsstands Monday, August 6), that movement is still alive. Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former Sen. Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an undersecretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress." As a result of the undermining of the science, there has been essentially no public pressure in the United States to cut greenhouse emissions, either through laws or by businesses acting on their own. Even legislation that would have required businesses to merely measure and report their greenhouse emissions died. Groups that opposed greenhouse curbs ramped up. They "settled on the 'science isn't there' argument because they didn't believe they'd be able to convince the public to do nothing if climate change were real," says David Goldston, who served as Republican chief of staff for the House of Representatives science committee until 2006. Although there has been an increase in discussion regarding climate change, all the recent talk has done little in the way of action. At least eight bills to require reductions in greenhouse gases have been introduced in Congress, but their fate is decidedly murky. The Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives decided last week not even to bring to a vote a requirement that automakers improve vehicle mileage, an obvious step toward reducing greenhouse emissions. Nor has there been much public pressure to do so. Instead, every time the scientific case got stronger, "the American public yawned and bought bigger cars," Rep. Rush Holt, a New Jersey congressman and physicist recently wrote in the journal Science; politicians "shrugged, said there is too much doubt among scientists, and did nothing." A related Newsweek Poll on global warming finds that the influence of the denial machine remains strong. Although the figure is less than in earlier polls, 39 percent of those asked say there is "a lot of disagreement among climate scientists" on the basic question of whether the planet is warming; 42 percent say there is a lot of disagreement among them that human activities are a major cause of global warming. Only 46 percent say the greenhouse effect is being felt today. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/-COVER http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20113753/site/newsweek/-Global Warming Timeline
Here is where I first heard of James M. Taylor. It’s old, but worth a re-read:
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
By the way, here is what Newsweak had to say about “climate change” once upon a time:
The Media is not going to let the question come up!
You really should try to be more honest at FR. This pretend that you are not aware of Newt’s testimony before a Congressional hearing on global warmning, where Newt eviscerated Gore over his specious assertions on AGW, well you pretending to not know it is just evidence that you will lie for someone so long as you can attack Newt with your lying.
It may seem minor, but it is not.
The AGW lie is not a “hoax.”
A hoax is perpetrated to fool people for humor and laughs.
What the AGW lie is is fraud.
Fraud is deceit in order to deprive others of their livelihood involuntarily and without the knowledge of the victim.
The AGW fraud has always been intended to strip the populace of their wealth and their freedom and to destroy industrialism.
It has been successful in that endeavor.
But now the fraud has been revealed.
And if bankers need to go to jail for their fraud, then “scientists” and other “green” hacks who supported this fraud also need to go to jail.
See #8 above... deep burning question about Mr. Greengrich to be sure!!!
You know about this because there was a whole thread on here about it two, or three weeks ago. You can look it up along with a gob of other hair-brained Greengrich hoakum that he's spoken/written in the recent past. You can look all that up, too!
He'll do to the conservative cause what Schwartzenegger did to our conservative cause here in CA because both of 'em are political hermaphrodites and opportunists!!!
And no! I don't support Romney or Paul either!!! So good luck with Greengrich if he ever gets elected...
Thanks for posting this. The Forbes article is one of the best I have read on this subject. I see that it is a couple of months old, but it should be widely disseminated.
I’d be interested in know how it is that you have all this perfect knowledge of what was in that chapter? ... And for ther record, Newt has stated on Special Report that it is the fraud of AGW which is preventing a green movement from addressing the human caused pollutions of coral reefs, waterways, fresh water aquifers, air and clear cutting rainforests. How do you feel about that? Bwahahahaha, you so speshul.
BTW, you are a particularly deceptive little insect, trying to conflate green agenda with AGW, and trying to lump all green initiatives into one obscenity that you don’t seem to be smart enough to define. You crap slingers have a stench about you and you’ve covered yourself int he fertilizer you love to sling. Have nice day
A Clever attempt by News Week to feed Boxer’s propaganda to the unknowing.
Global warming is a hoax.
And I just posted this one today:
I look at that picture and begin to think that maybe Newt did that for a reason.
All of a sudden, with a “global warming” Newt for President, all these hoax stories are starting to appear.
Before I could support Newt, I needed to know what the hay was the sitdown with the queen of lies and deceit sll sbout. When I looked closely at the timeline I then accepted Newt's explanation given on Special Report and have since been supporting him for the nomination and to be the next President of the United States. There is a subtle bonus to a Gingrich presidency.
By electing the man who helped to impeach the sinkEmperor, voting Americans can send a message to the democrap party that their lying degeneracy is repudiated and we believe in forgiveness from the source the democrat progressives disavow in order to ceaselessly defend the lying presidents they favor.
Gingrich said Kerry's new book, "This Moment on Earth: Today's New Environmentalists and Their Vision for the Future," is "a very interesting read" and said he agrees with 60 percent of it.
Gingrich, the former House speaker, said a government cap amounts to more regulation and more lawsuits: "America changes much faster in the marketplace. We can move very rapidly if we're moving there as consumers."
Kerry asked what Gingrich would say to Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., who calls global warming a hoax. "My message, I think, is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move toward the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere," Gingrich replied.
But how they said they would tackle the global warming problem is where they differed.Politifact (cited only to get quote from Kerry/Gingrich debate:
Talking from a podium in the Russell Senate Office Building, Gingrich argued that a program including cash prizes, targeted tax cuts and other economic incentives will lure business entrepreneurs to develop technology to tackle the climate problem. He said that type of program would be faster than a bureaucratic government program because it will avoid the rush of special interests to avoid regulation and costly litigation.
Gingrich began first with a concession to his opponent. Holding the new book by Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, Gingrich said, "This is a very good book. As a clearly right-wing reader, I would commend the book" as one that shows examples of local leadership on environmental issues. "I would agree with about 60 percent of this book," he added.
Gingrich said he will be pushing for a way to deal with climate change that is not heavy on regulation a point on which he criticized Kerry's plan. "I want to suggest that we need a new science- and technology-based, entrepreneurial, market-oriented and locally led environmentalism," Gingrich said.
KERRY: "What would you say to Sen. Inhofe and others in the Senate who are resisting even science? What's your message to them here today?"
GINGRICH: "My message, I think is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere "
KERRY:"And do it urgently, now?"
Gingrich said there must be a "green conservatism." "There has to be a willingness to stand up and say, alright, here's the right way to solve these as seen by our values system," Gingrich said. Gingrich said there needs to be more money available in the form of incentives to find better ways of bringing forward new technology.
"We should address it and we should address it very actively," [Gingrich] said in the debate, citing a UN report documenting the earths rising temperatures. "The consensus is that humans have contributed to that. I don't think there's any consensus that we are the only contribution, but there is a clear agreement that human activity has helped increase the level of warmness."
"And cap-and-trade, by the way, for sulfuric acid and acid rain -- which I voted for and helped pass as the Republican whip -- was a very definable number of plants. A carbon cap in trade, if it's universal, is enormously complicated and transfers an amazing amount of power to a Washington bureaucracy and will create, inevitably, winners and losers and will become politicized overnight."
"I'm not automatically saying that coercion and bureaucracy isn't an answer. I just don't think it's as positive and as creative an answer as market incentives in terms of getting the kind of change we want."
FreeRepublic Discussion: Flashback: Kerry and Gingrich Hugging Trees... -- Although it wasn't much of a discussion, nobody posted a comment dealing with what Newt said, it was mostly a Perry-bashing session.
YouTube video -- 7 minutes of the Gingrich/Kerry debate -- Heavily edited though; can't find a full debate video, but it should be in the c-span archives somewhere.
It is possible to simply accept that what Gingrich says now is what he will do, and to trust him. It is hard to ignore everything he said in the past 5 years, or pretend he said the opposite of what we see him saying.
Shills like you seem to think Newt Gingrich was supposed to know the ‘globull warming evidence’ was false. I take it you’re so smart that you have known by scientific evidence right from the start that global warming is not occurring. ... And if you say that, you’re a liar. People like you make me sick. What you’re doing is deceit, plain and simple. Newt Gingrich does believe humans need to clean up our polluting of the environments. He at one time and for a few years believed the supposed evidence from lying scientists that gloabl warming is a fact and that it is caused by human fuel consumption. Since the scientists have been exposed as frauds and liars working the system for research funds and fame, Newt has gone on the record several times and in various nevues to admit he was fooled just like you were at the start. The poisoning of our environment, on the other hand, is very real and Newt has stuck his neck out to address that, only to have deceitful people like you try to anil him with what he said before the refutational evidence came to light. You haven’t changed your spots, liar.
What you're doing is deceit, plain and simple. Newt Gingrich does believe humans need to clean up our polluting of the environments. He at one time and for a few years believed the supposed evidence from lying scientists that gloabl warming is a fact and that it is caused by human fuel consumption.
Since the scientists have been exposed as frauds and liars working the system for research funds and fame, Newt has gone on the record several times and in various nevues to admit he was fooled just like you were at the start.
The poisoning of our environment, on the other hand, is very real and Newt has stuck his neck out to address that, only to have deceitful people like you try to nail him with what he said before the refutational evidence came to light. You haven't changed your spots, liar.
BTW, you little nettle, the Kerry Gingrich debate was in April 2007. when did you find out evidence that global warming was not happening?
I’m guessing that isn’t the official Gingrich supporter response “How was Newt Gingrich supposed to know?”
I can guarantee you that people were attacking Romney in the 2008 election cycle for accepting the notion that there was manmade global warming (and contrary to your implication, you won’t find a SINGLE post by me anywhere on FreeRepublic from ANY time that defends Romney on that belief).
Given that Freepers castigated Rick Perry for not knowing in 1989 that Global Warming was false, and that Gore was going to be the spokesperson for it, I find the argument that we are “liars” for noting what Gingrich said in 2007 to be specious.
The “ManBearPig” South Park episode mocking Gore for his belief in global warming was aired in April of 2006, a year before this debate.
But if you want to argue that Gingrich was simply ignorant at that point, and therefore justified in his proposals, go right ahead. I don’t think that’s going to sell Gingrich with conservatives though.
BTW, I also wouldn’t bother attacking me from the left on environmentalism. I’m the “nut” here at FR who owns not one, but TWO Prius cars, and also traded in my polluting gas mower for a cordless electric back in 1996. And while people here mocked CFLs, I replaced most of my house lights with them long ago.
I’m probably closer to Gingrich than you are on this subject — except I don’t think government should be regulating this, OR giving away tax dollars to “incentivize” us.
I hope your aiming of that post at me was an accident - as I don’t believe anything I posted could in any way be considered promoting Greengrich and his fake Conservatism...
You seemed to share my concern with Greengrich's treacherous green streak and his camellian like nature that camoflages his true intentions to enmesh this country in slavery to affirmative action for fish and plants along with welfare for wildlife at horrific expense to our tenuous economic future.
Please excuse me for my interjection into your conversation. I've taken great care in not pinging the other party to this reply as they appeared to be going over the top on being thin skinned where Greengich's unhealthy tendencies are concerned. It's just that I'm concerned where the Greengich bandwagon will take so many at FR. It's not going to be pleasant, to say the least!!!
You enjoy your freedom while you can for tomorrow America will have a terminal case of GANG-GREEN if we don't nurse it back to health right now!!! Cheers...
Sorry... I didn’t read it that way. I’m so use to folks “aiming” at me that O guess I took your post that was.