It’s Throwback Thursday and time to continue to look at the 10-year-old scandal of Climategate. In the previous article, a look was taken at how Climategate exposed the UN IPCC as engaging in fraudulent science, unethical practices, bullying and intimidation of reputable scientists exposing the fraud, and the role of the lamestream entertainment government-controlled enemedia who reported on the issue and took a “nothing to see here, move along” stance. Climategate also exposed the US Department of Energy as compliant with data being hidden and falsified to promote a global agenda and global government under the scandalous usurper Hussein Soetoro.
As Chapter 10 of Marc Morano’s “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change” reminded readers of this scandal, it exposed how the climate change/global warming narrative undermined genuine scientific research. According to Eduardo Zorita, a UN IPCC scientist who defected from the agency because of the behavior of his colleagues, “In this atmosphere, Ph.D. students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the ‘politically correct picture’. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the ‘pleasure’ to experience all this in my area of research”. Students attempting to attain a Ph.D. are “tempted” to “tweak” data to fit the “politically correct picture” meaning the universities are complicit in steering students to falsify their research and lie about it. This should alarm every parent who sends their child to any university.
Credible scientists suggested the UN IPCC had become outdated, politicizing climate science to fit a narrative involving government policy making.
Will the 2nd Amendment Be Destroyed By the Biden Admin?
Another scientist suggested disbanding the United Nations climate panel altogether. Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia, which was ground zero of the Climategate scandal, suggested that the UN IPCC had “run its course.” He complained about its “tendency to politicize climate science” and suggested that it had “perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian, exclusive form of knowledge production.”
Hulme warned, “It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science.”
Pat Michaels, a climate scientist and IPCC reviewer, commented, “This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn’t questionable practice, this is unethical.”
Yet another UN IPCC reviewer, Vincent Gray, declared in November 2009, “I long ago realized that they were faking the whole exercise.”
Other UN scientists were even more blunt. Will Alexander, professor emeritus at the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa and a former member of the UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, called the UN IPCC a “worthless carcass” and then–IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri a “disgrace.”
He complained of the IPCC’s “deliberate manipulation to suit political objectives” and “fraudulent science” that “continue[d] to be exposed” and explained, “I was subjected to vilification tactics…. I persisted. Now, at long last, my persistence has been rewarded…. There is no believable evidence to support [the IPCC] claims. I rest my case!”
Geologist Don Easterbrook, a professor at Western Washington University, summed up the scandal: “The corruption within the IPCC revealed by the Climategate scandal, the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC that it is no longer a credible agency.”
With so many speaking out about the fraudulence and data manipulation, why is climate change even an issue today? It should have died a swift death in 2009. University PhD students were targeted to falsify their data, tainting their research, to fit the “approved” narrative, which created the undermining of the science through upcoming researchers. Universities had been hijacked by the communist, anti-constitutionalists agenda-driven professors who assisted in producing a gaggle of glorified geese gurgling the same gaffes. When those scientists calling BS on the hoax of climate change were out of the picture, globalists and the UN IPCC had a fresh crop of weeds who learned to falsify research and lie to take their place. Ingenious really, but it was exposed 10 years ago. Unfortunately, some homo stupidians (h/t Mike Adams) refused to acknowledge the scandal, instead worked feverishly with the media and government shills to perpetuate the lies. This was done through name-calling, accusing those exposing the scandal of creating hype, and doubling down on their claims while urging “science deniers” to be prosecuted, jailed, or even worse, murdered.
Warmists’ tendency to resort to insults in the climate debate suggests that they may not have scientific evidence and rational arguments to back up their position. On December 4, 2009, at the height of the Climategate scandal, I appeared on BBC TV—which described me as “one of America’s leading climate change skeptics”—to debate Andrew Watson, professor at the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, whose emails appear in the Climategate files. Watson, bent on defending his colleagues, was the climate activist who called me an asshole on live television. As CBS News reported, “Professor Andrew Watson of the University of East Anglia in eastern England. It didn’t take long before the two got in each other’s face and Watson became increasingly annoyed with Morano’s loud interruptions. He finally lost it by the end when the anchor thanked the participants. ‘What an asshole,’ Watson said.”
His remark prompted an on-air apology to viewers from the BBC for the offensive language. During the live debate, I charged Professor Watson with being in “denial” over the importance of Climategate and noted that “you have to feel sorry for Professor Watson.” I explained that Professor Watson’s “colleague, Mike Hulme at the University of East Anglia is saying this is authoritarian science, he is suggesting the IPCC should be disbanded based on what Climategate reveals.”
A clearly agitated Watson, whose university was at the epicenter of the Climategate scandal, blurted out, “Will you shut up just a second!?” right before dropping the A bomb on me. He later apologized to me via email.
I myself was actually mentioned in one of the Climategate scandal emails. On July 23, 2009, AP reporter Seth Borenstein had emailed one of the Climategate scientists, Penn State professor Michael Mann of hockey stick fame, about a “a paper in JGR [Journal of Geophysical Research] today that Marc Morano is hyping wildly.” Mann wrote back to Borenstein, “The aptly named Marc ‘Morano’ has fallen for it!”
As Breitbart News reported, “Borenstein’s email is hardly a neutral ‘standard step for journalists.’ Borenstein criticizes Marc Morano, a critic of manmade global warming claims, of ‘hyping wildly’ the study that Borenstein was asking for comments on. The email looks as if Borenstein was working with others involved in Climategate to discredit critics of man-made global warming.”
Associated Press climate reporter Seth Borenstein’s reputation as a foot soldier in the global warming cause was further cemented by the Climategate revelations.
As more scientists with the UN IPCC defected, the truth of the undermining of reputable scientists continued to emerge.
Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning environmental physical chemist from Japan, is another UN IPCC scientist who has turned his back on the UN climate panel. Kiminori declared that global warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…. When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”
Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller presented a video lecture in 2011 on his disgust with the “hide the decline” temperature alterations, which came to light in Climategate, and which we discussed in chapter six. “They are not allowed to do this in science. It isn’t up to our standards,” Muller declared. “As a scientist, I now have a list of scientists whose papers I will not read anymore.”
As early as 2011, it was presented that scientists altered temperatures that showed a decline in the “hide the decline” alterations cited by Richard Muller. This was around the time of Climategate 2.0.
As the scandal broke in 2009, Morano hoped the media would continue its downplay of the scandal or ignoring of it altogether to allow the actual reality of the scandal to be presented without the “man is causing climate change” defenders to interfere by applying filters. Unfortunately, the lamestream entertainment government-controlled enemedia was into the “Hussein Soetoro is the best thing for the US since the airplane” phase so presented everything the man said as fact when it was a lie, including man-made climate change.
The wagons circled to protect the false UN IPCC claims. Several high-profile investigations of Climategate occurred; however, the main goal of those investigations was to restore the credibility of the damaged UN and their shill climate scientists. Like so many investigations in government agencies, the man-made climate change advocates investigated themselves and not surprisingly, exonerated themselves.
The pre-determined goal was to declare that Climategate was much ado about nothing. The investigations were hopelessly compromised—lacking thoroughness and riddled with conflicts of interest. The Hockey Stick Illusion author Andrew Montford analyzed four of the Climategate investigations and found that they were “rushed, cursory and largely unpersuasive.”
Clive Crook, writing for the Atlantic, also slammed the Penn State investigation: “The Penn State inquiry exonerating Michael Mann—the paleoclimatologist who came up with ‘the hockey stick’—would be difficult to parody. Three of four allegations are dismissed out of hand at the outset: the inquiry announces that, for ‘lack of credible evidence’, it will not even investigate them…. You think I exaggerate?…In short, the case for the prosecution is never heard. Mann is asked if the allegations (well, one of them) are true, and says no.”
As Crook explained, “The [Penn State] report…says, in effect, that Mann is a distinguished scholar, a successful raiser of research funding, a man admired by his peers—so any allegation of academic impropriety must be false.”
But the coup de grâce was the report’s conclusion that anyone as respected (and as lucrative for Penn State) as Mann couldn’t possibly be guilty. Penn State was touting Mann’s cash cow status for the university as some sort of guarantee that he could do no wrong.
As the report explained,
“This level of success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it, clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research…. Had Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research been outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for him to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve intense scrutiny from scientists who may or may not agree with his scientific conclusions…. Clearly, Dr. Mann’s reporting of his research has been successful and judged to be outstanding by his peers. This would have been impossible had his activities in reporting his work been outside of accepted practices in his field.”
At the Watts Up with That blog, Willis Eschenbach pointed out the fact that the Penn State investigators had tasked Mann, the man under investigation, with gathering and presenting the evidence against himself. The university simply exonerated Mann by making sure that “none of the important questions are ever answered.”
Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit pointed out that the UK Royal Society’s Climategate investigation was “tainted” by the fact that the investigators—including one of Mann’s co-authors—had an obvious stake in declaring there was nothing to see here.
Another one of the Climategate investigations was the Muir Russell investigation, which the UK Register’s Andrew Orlowski called “shameful”—its main goal was to urge a “campaign to win hearts and minds” to restore confidence in global warming science.
Climate Audit’s Steve McIntyre noted that the Muir Russell report “adopted a unique inquiry process in which they interviewed only one side—CRU [the Climatic Research Unit of East Anglia University]. As a result, the report is heavily weighted towards CRU apologia.”
An East Anglia University inquiry chaired by Lord Oxburgh was characterized by the Register as “Dracula’s in charge of the blood bank” because of conflicts of interest. As Andrew Orlowski reported, “The peer leading the second Climategate enquiry at the University of East Anglia serves as a director of one of the most powerful environmental networks in the world, according to Companies House documents—and has failed to declare it. Lord Oxburgh, a geologist by training and the former scientific advisor to the Ministry of Defence, was appointed to lead the enquiry into the scientific aspects of the Climategate scandal on Monday. But Oxburgh is also a director of GLOBE, the Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment.”
And, this is how legitimate science proving the hoax of climate change was undermined – a conspiracy between the UN IPCC, the lamestream entertainment government-controlled enemedia, academia, and disreputable scientists investigating and exonerating themselves manipulating the narrative and keeping scientists’ names who had defected as agreeing with the junk science of climate change on their record in another brazen example of falsification of information. Politicians like Hussein Soetoro gladly spread the lies in order to promote global government and global policies on the hoax, which would place economic hardships on any nation subscribing to the ruse. Religious leaders and Pope Francis peddle the nonsense using buzz words and phrases such as poverty eradication, climate refugees, aiding the poor, stewardship, and the young generation understands the importance. Roll out teenage stupidians like Greta Thunberg, who are excellent actors feigning tremendous outrage over government inaction and skip school to “save the world”, to chastise adults and ignite the gasoline thrown on the false “fire” narrative and manipulation through guilt sways enough of the gullible to either support it or keep quiet about it.
In the next article, how this undermining of legitimate science has affected policies related to the hoax of man-made climate change will be covered.
- CJ Pearson Challenges Greta Thunberg to a Climate Change Debate
- Pope Proposes New Sin For Climate Change Deniers: Thou Shalt Not Destroy The Harmony of the Environment
- New evidence emerges to show that climate change is a criminal science fraud ring run by corrupt pseudoscience puppets
- The Bogus “Consensus” Argument on Climate Change
- Here’s Why ALL Liberals Should Be “Climate Change Skeptics”
Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media
Your Daily Briefing:
Fight Online Censorship!
Get the news Google and Facebook don't want you to see: Sign up for DC Dirty Laundry's daily briefing and do your own thinking!