Climate Crock Sacks Hack Attack - Part 2

Uploaded by greenman3610 on 11.12.2009

You disagree with them, they threaten you? Thousands of emails showing global warming scientists blasting researchers
who do not buy into their doomsday scenarios. One of the scientists, threatening to, and I quote now,
#Beat the crap# out of our next guest. Pat Micheals, from the Cato Institute, joins me now. Welcome to the program.
I want to move on real fast to the threat, let me quote that one.
#I'm really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil, next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting,
I'll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.#
Wait a minute. An email?
An email that the supposed target of the threat was not even aware of?
That's not a threat. This is a threat.
You know what happens to a nosy fellows? No? Want to guess? No?
And this, is a threat -
Bill O Reilly: #We have your phone numbers, by the way, so if you're listening, Mike, we have your phone number,
and we're going to turn it over to Fox security, and you'll be getting a little visit.#
Some threats are serious, and some threats aren't meant to be taken seriously.
Jackie Gleason: How would you like to be the first human being to land on the moon?
Awww, Shut up.
13 years of emails, and all we haveis a privately expressed temptation to
punch someone at some unspecified future time? Right. Call the cops.
Gleason: I could have you arrested!
Awww, shut up!
A more potentially serious accusation, however, has been leveled in some quarters.
The real problem here is the emails showing these guys trying to intimidate the the editors f the major scientific journals
and succeeding, in other words keeping me, and my friends, and my colleagues, from publishing in the refereed literature.#
If true, the charge would indeed be a serious one. The prestigious journal Nature looked at the evidence,
and summarized their findings in a recent editorial.
The editors write: #A fair reading of the emails reveals nothing to support the denialist's conspiracy theories.#
#In one of the more controversial exchanges, UEA scientists sharply criticized the quality of two papers
and vowed to keep at least the first paper out of the upcoming Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.#
#Whatever the e-mail authors may have said to one another in (supposed) privacy, however, what matters is how they acted.
And the fact is that, in the end, neither they nor the IPCC suppressed anything:
when the assessment report was published in 2007 it referenced and discussed both papers.#
Of particular interest is the paper by Drs Willie Soon, and Sallie Balliunas, both of the Harvard-Smithsonian
Center for Astrophysics. The pair had co-authored a paper that
asserted that the 20th century warming trend was not unusual compared with other shifts over the last 1000 years.
Published in 2003, the paper came to the attention of Senator James Inhofe. Senator Inhofe, who is well known
in scientific and environmental circles, was then chairman of the Senate environment and public works committee.
Mr Inhofe's is known for holding decidedly contrarian views on scientific matters.
In 2008 the League of Conservation voters awarded him a perfect 0 rating for his legislative record on environmental issues.
In a recent, memorable speech, Mr Inhofe has made it clear that he is in denial about a lot more things than just climate.
#I'm really proud that in the recorded history of our family,
we've never had a divorce or any kind of a homosexual relationship.#
In 2003, Senator Inhofe was concerned that the country was close to adopting a bipartisan climate bill.
Republican Senator John Mccain and Democrat Joseph Leiberman had crafted a bill that was soon to get
a hearing on the senate floor. The Soon and Balliunas paper seemed to come at the right time for Inhofe to make it
the center piece of his opposition. The scientists seemed perfect allies for Inhofe.
According to a story by Andrew Revkin in the New York Times, the paper itself was underwritten by 53,000 dollars
from the American Petroleum Institute. Both scientists received income from the Exxon funded George C. marshall institute.
Dr Soon was also associated with the Exxon funded, and the Center for Science and Public Policy.
The paper had been published in an obscure journal called Climate Research,
one of whose editors had expressed skepticism about human causes of climate change.
The process that followed has been compared to the tactics used by creationists to promote their agenda.
#These “skeptics” find what they consider to be a weak point in the mainstream theory and critique it.
Not by conducting original research; they simply review previous work. Then they find a little-known, ...
journal where an editor sympathetic to their viewpoint hangs his hat.
They get their paper through the peer review process and into print. They publicize the hell out of it.#
Hearings centered on the paper began the same week that Mccain and Lieberman were trying to force a vote on their
climate bill. Inhofe portrayed Soon and Balliunas as Galileos, bravely opposing
the orthodoxy of their time, and their paper as a ground-breaking, paradigm-shifting masterpiece.
Mainstream scientists fought back with a devastating critique. Other member of the Climate Research editorial board
expressed strong misgivings about the paper, and the process by which it was rushed to publication.
5 of the 10 editors resigned, and eventually, even the journal's founder, Otto Kinne, agreed with critics
that the the paper's thesis could not be convincingly supported from the evidence provided.#
But the hearings had the desired effect, creating an air of confusion and doubt that clouded
the debate around the climate bill, which eventually failed to pass.
The tactics being used to today are the same. The carefully timed release of stolen emails is being used to cloud
the overwhelming science behind climate change, just as the global community has gathered to take action in Copenhagen.
But many in the media smell the manipulation that is going on, and are beginning to see this teapot tempest for what it is.
Mainstream scientific organizations, including the American Meteorological Society,
and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, are re-affirming their support for climate science.
The journal Nature has called the denialist frenzy #paranoid, and laughable#.
The conservative Economist dubs the deniers #foolish#.
At the same time, the World Meteorological Organization has announced that this decade has been
the warmest in recorded history, and the US EPA has opened the way toward the regulation of CO2 emissions.
Mohammad Al-Sabban, Saudi Arabia’s lead climate negotiator, told BBC News that
"he expected the email non story to derail the international climate summit
#It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship between human activities and
climate change.# The Saudi's longtime allies in the American political establishment picked up and amplified the message.
Leading republican intellectuals weighed in against the weight of the science.
At the same time, a campaign continued against climate scientists, with break ins and theft reported at Canada's leading
climate study center. With strangers attempting to impersonate IT personnel.
Meanwhile, climate scientists began to receive real threats, of physical harm, and even death.
Fox news produced polling data about the affair, which apparently surveyed an astounding 120 percent of the US population.
The forces of ignorance and anti science are lashing out, as they feel their world view is under threat.
We can expect more turmoil in coming months as they become more and more desperate.
If you're someone concerned with seeing the world as it is, and you think the denialists case doesn't add up,
keep coming back to Climate Denial Crock of the Week.