Uh Oh. ClimateGate II?

by William Teach | March 5, 2010 10:00 am

The Washington Times let’s us in on the story

Undaunted by a rash of scandals over the science[1] underpinning climate change, top climate researchers are plotting to respond with what one scientist involved said needs to be “an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach” to gut the credibility of skeptics.

Apparently, the science can’t stand on its own. What say you, alarmists?

In private e-mails obtained by The Washington Times, climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences say they are tired of “being treated like political pawns” and need to fight back in kind. Their strategy includes forming a nonprofit group to organize researchers and use their donations to challenge critics by running a back-page ad in the New York Times.

“Most of our colleagues don’t seem to grasp that we’re not in a gentlepersons’ debate, we’re in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules,” Paul R. Ehrlich, a Stanford University researcher, said in one of the e-mails.

Science! And then there is “Stephen H. Schneider, a Stanford professor and senior fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment who was part of the e-mail discussion,” who told the WT that engaging in an ad battle is crazy, because those wacky skeptics just have so much more money. Really? Joanne Nova points out[2]

Somehow the tables have turned. For all the smears of big money funding the “deniers”, the numbers reveal that the sceptics are actually the true grassroots campaigners, while Greenpeace defends Wall St. How times have changed.

Sceptics are fighting a billion dollar industry aligned with a trillion dollar trading scheme. Big Oil’s supposed evil influence has been vastly outdone by Big Government, and even those taxpayer billions are trumped by Big-Banking.

The big-money side of this debate has fostered a myth that sceptics write what they write because they are funded by oil profits. They say, follow the money? So I did and it’s chilling. Greens and environmentalists need to be aware each time they smear with an ad hominem attack they are unwittingly helping giant finance houses.

Read the whole story as Jo does, in fact, follow the money.

There is massive money involved in being a climate alarmist. Just ask Al Gore[3].

Tom Nelson[4]: Arctic sea ice extent: greater than it was 5 years ago. Antarctic sea ice extent “unusually high”

There is No Frakking “Scientific Consensus” on Global Warming[5]: Despite protests from expert reviewers, 42% of the documents cited in one chapter of the climate bible (UN IPCC) are grey literature rather than peer-reviewed.

Endnotes:
  1. Undaunted by a rash of scandals over the science: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/05/scientists-plot-to-hit-back-at-critics/
  2. Joanne Nova points out: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2835581.htm
  3. Just ask Al Gore: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/03/global-warmings-biggest-winners/
  4. Tom Nelson: http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2010/03/arctic-sea-ice-extent-greater-than-it.html
  5. There is No Frakking “Scientific Consensus” on Global Warming: http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/03/almost-half-non-peer-reviewed.html

Source URL: https://rightwingnews.com/climate-change/uh-oh-climategate-ii/