A Crime Against Humanity Indeed!

Here is another article giving a glimpse into the nightmare that climategate is revealing about the great man-caused global warming scandal. There are ramifications almost beyond comprehension. How are people going to respond when they realize they have been consistently lied to and misled by those in positions of power and trust, (scientists and politicians)?

The following article comes from a fine (new to me) Australian journal found online here
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/a-crime-against-humanity
Peter

A crime against humanity

by Walter Starck

November 30, 2009

Climategate: Trivial break in or devastating break out?

The attempts by AGW proponents to dismiss the significance of what is revealed in the Climategate information serves only to further compound the malfeasance involved. What has been exposed is anything but trivial. It goes to the core of the science itself and any attempt to trivialise it is in itself further corruption.

Science has been the most successful of all human endeavours to understand our world and to avoid our propensity for lying to ourselves. Its essence is a search for truth founded on empirical evidence, rational consistency and verifiability. In science all understanding is tentative and subject to revision as indicated by new evidence or better reasoning. Honesty and transparency are vital elements in this process.

The CRU emails reveal an obvious subordination of all these elements to an agenda of presenting AGW as incontestable fact and suppressing or denigrating anything not in accord with this conviction. AGW is exposed not so much as science, but rather as anti-science. Like the so-called creation science it resembles in various respects, it pretends to be science but is devoted to defending a belief not to discovering truth. Evidence is blatantly selected, dismissed, distorted, suppressed, hidden and denied in accord with its conformity with AGW. Conflicting rationales are employed to support differing points of argument and independent verification is treated as a risk to be avoided at any cost. Unlike real science wherein truth is the ultimate aim, in AGW science its main consideration is as something to be avoided.

That the utter disregard for truth exhibited in the CRU emails can be either invisible or insignificant to AGW defenders is indicative of the vast chasm between their faith and the open rational empirical world of real science.

The other very big deal revealed in the CRU files has been the amateur hairball of undocumented unverified computer coding on which much of their climate work is based. That output from such hopelessly inept programming has been accepted by the IPCC as a foundation element for their assessments and become the basis for major national and international policies would be a travesty beyond belief were it not real.

At a time when the world is facing both severe economic instability and constraints on vital energy supplies, to have critical decision making in both areas distorted by deliberate untruths is a very big deal indeed. It is far beyond just a petty academic dispute or scientific misconduct. Even though it does entail millions of dollars being obtained by false pretences and also involves a betrayal of vital national interests, it goes beyond fraud or even treason. Bad decisions stemming from false information on climate change will at minimum result in dangerous exacerbation of economic and energy shortages. With resulting wars and famines, AGW could well become a crime against humanity exceeding any that have gone before.

Although AGW proponents would, of course, make the same argument regarding the danger of climate change, there are distinct differences. Climate sceptics have only argued the reasons and evidence. They have not lied about evidence or suppressed and distorted it nor have they engaged in fraud to obtain billions of dollars in funding. Perhaps most importantly, sceptics have called for open debate, transparency and independent verification while warmers have tried to suppress any opinion other than consent and to hold their authority to be beyond question or examination. In a situation where science is most needed, warmers have greatly damaged both its functioning and its credibility. Ironically though, they have also restored credibility in a healthy scepticism and the authority they tried to claim they have themselves discredited.

Unfortunately, public leaders find it almost impossible to ever admit error and reverse themselves once they have committed to a position. Even though the blatant fraud behind catastrophic warming has been exposed for all to see, a meaningless charade of empty political posturing will probably continue for some time while leaders try to find a graceful way to exit.

When the time comes that mistakes can be admitted some apologies are overdue, especially from:

• Leading scientific journals (esp. Science and Nature) as well as national scientific academies for so readily lending themselves and their prestige to the fraud.
• The Nobel Peace Prize committee for honouring extremist activists advocating policies certain to exacerbate third world hunger and poverty.
• BBC, CBC, ABC and numerous commercial news organizations for regularly regurgitating rank AGW propaganda with no investigation and flagrant bias.
• The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for awarding an Oscar to a third rate polemic posing as a documentary.
• Brown, Rudd, Obama et al. for jumping in front of the climate parade without due diligence.
• The research mob who climbed aboard the AGW bandwagon for the funding and attention it offered while making little effort to inform themselves on the actual evidence.

Although some warmers have advocated Nuremburg style public trials for what they deem to be climate crimes, such does appear excessive. However, it also seems justice should demand that those guilty of actual climate fraud not be let off entirely free. For the major players, a properly warranted commission to determine if and where criminal proceedings might be warranted would be appropriate. As for the multitude of bit players and their fellow travellers, the great climate fraud provides a unique opportunity to effect a badly needed housecleaning in the environmental science establishment. Large numbers of ethically challenged third rate researchers have exposed themselves by taking prominent positions on the climate bandwagon. Their further employ and funding should be evaluated accordingly. Pruning back deadwood in the Fall when it is easy to see can be most beneficial to subsequent regrowth.

Even though the faith of true believers in AGW remains strong and supporters hope, while opponents fear, the CRU episode will soon fade away, this is unlikely. What has been revealed is not simply an isolated blemish on the surface of AGW science, but rather a grand exposure of systemic corruption at the very heart of it. The malaise is widespread and of long standing. That the malignancy extends well beyond what has been just been revealed is obvious. That further revelations will follow seems certain.

Most significantly, the U.S. Congress has expressed a need to investigate this matter. Various Congressional Committees led by chairpersons of differing persuasions have such power and may use it at their discretion, unconstrained by Terms of Reference or approval from the Administration. It now seems inevitable that AGW science is going to have to justify itself. This will require having to answer uncomfortable questions under oath and producing any evidence requested. What has already been revealed in the CRU release makes it obvious that the climate fraudsters are in big trouble.

Public opinion polls over the past few days have indicated a precipitous fall in support for climate control. Politicians who have committed themselves to it would be well advised to start executing their exit strategy. If they can’t think of one, in the face of the inevitable they might do better yet to consider the unthinkable and simply admit having been wrong. Most of us could even have some sympathy with that.