Dakota Beacon

The credibility of manmade global warming, or anthropogenic global warming (AGW), hangs in the balance.

Hoax. Scam. Fraud. Deception. Quackery. Call it what you will. Scandal envelops the global warming advocacy community with a vengeance.

First came word on November 19 that the main server at the British Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia had been penetrated. Hackers obtained 160 megabytes of spicy e-mails exchanged between leading global warming advocates from around the world. Time and again throughout their e-mails the proponents of AGW allude to the data destroyed, omitted or otherwise hidden in order to advance their AGW pet theory. (See http://www.eastangliaemails.com for the published e-mails.)

The collaborative snow job goes even further. Six weeks earlier came word of the questionable use of tree rings as a means for determining the history of global temperature change. This story came to light when published in “Environment” on September 29 and reported in the “UK Register.”  It challenges the accuracy and truthfulness of several climate change papers used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to advance global environmental policy. The papers were predicated on a “reconstruction” of historical temperature changes derived from the study of tree rings (dendrochronology).

Using tree rings to “reconstruct” global temperatures is controversial at best. This “reconstruction” ignores other ring influences such as CO2 and nutrient intake as well as humidity and rainfall. Worse yet, proactive AGW scientists failed to archive raw data. This makes it impossible for other scientists to check the data or replicate the results.

Turns out only three trees from the Siberian Yamal Peninsula were used, and these were cherry picked to support the AGW pre-ordained conclusion.

Concurrently came the revelation that access to data was denied to skeptical fellow climate scientists for purposes of peer review. Prestigious peer review journals such as “Nature” and “Science” were reluctant to press AGW advocates for data because the journals’ editors themselves shared the AGW biases.

Two Canadian heroes, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, devoted years to seeking release of the raw data from the CRU. Their determination to verify the tree ring “reconstruction” resulted in the truth of the Yamal data fraud coming to light.

The point? The “consensus” among climatologists for manmade global warming rests on rigged data. In other words, the validity of the AGW claim just went up in smoke.

Any one of these stories ought to be a gold mine for investigative journalists. It is one of the biggest scandals to come down the pike in years. However, as far as the sycophant media is concerned, the stories never happened. Ergo, the scant coverage.

It is hard to believe that scientists manipulated data to advance the manmade global warming notion. Men of repute from the Universities of Arizona, Pennsylvania State, Massachusetts at Amherst as well as the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California conspired to manipulate the data. The entire concept of manmade global warming is contrived.

The perpetrators, of course, blame the hackers. Why would they not turn the tables and plot strategy to discredit those who uncovered the hoax? The stakes are high. To allow the disclosure of the hoax to continue would destroy the reputation of many scientists. Additionally, AGW advocates and their institutions risk the loss of huge amounts of federal grant money.

Implications are enormous. A second global warming treaty negotiated at Copenhagen next week makes no sense at all. The vast amount of greenhouse gas emissions, estimated at 99.7%, is beyond human control. At the same time, the cost to reduce further emissions is estimated to cost over $100 trillion. Much of that cost would be borne by the United States.

The White House remains mum. Oblivious to the scandal, President Obama is traveling to Copenhagen to sign a global warming treaty replacing the Kyoto Accords (which the U.S. never signed). It would obligate the U.S. to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions and subsidize reduction in other countries to the tune of billions of dollars. Our lifestyle would change.

Congressional leaders, too, remain silent about the hoax. Congress long ago bought the AGW argument with the passage of cap and trade legislation in the U.S. House. Now the Senate takes its whack at cap and trade.

Are we living in a fantasy world or what?