Odd Citizen

Odd Citizen
An Odd Citizen’s Search For Vanishing Freedoms

A Good, Readable Summary of Climate Fraud

December 2nd, 2009

If you really want to learn what all the noise about ClimateGate is all about, I highly recommend Christopher Monckton’s very readable treatment in “Caught Green Handed, Cold facts about the hot topic of global temperature change after the Climategate scandal” referenced here in pdf format. In this 40 page summary filled with graphs and arguments, Lord Monckton, former science advisor to the British government, lays out what he considers to be the essential lies behind the global warming fraud, as he calls it.

I don’t personally believe that the people involved in this fraud had evil intentions, but were rather caught up in a sort of mass hysteria, group-think, PC movement. They thought of themselves as planet saviors. But the implications of having their U.N. backed fantasies would become world-wide political policy would be stunningly ugly. It would involve human industrial and scientific progress and personal freedom being replaced by a philosophy of penance, penury, servitude and gloom — sort of a new Dark Ages.

So let’s can IPCC. Shelve the whole of climate hype and greenie politically influenced policy. Cancel all funding of global warming centered research. Open up all climate data to independent and objective reconstruction starting with a clean slate. Let this be done by, among others, academics in the comfort of their usual research studies, rather than by lavish government-funded, agenda driven projects. Calm down. Then, if and when the scientists and their critics can objectively and conclusively prove that there is a climate problem, and that we as a society can do anything responsible and effective about it, then we can calmly and jointly discuss mitigation of some sort.

Until then we have much more important things that deserve our attention and resources.

4 Responses to “A Good, Readable Summary of Climate Fraud”

  1. comment number 1 by: bkalafut

    “Throw out all that science for no good reason because Martel says so–and ignore the previous literature, too”?

  2. comment number 2 by: bkalafut

    If you take Monckton as being consistently correct and up-to-date, you could say that he has a point in about a quarter of this and three-quarters is specious junk.

    But he’s neither correct nor up-to-date. And his use of words like “unequivocally” to cover for points that have been totally discredited by more careful, modest, thorough investigators pretty much makes him worthy of a firm sock in the jaw. It’s one thing to be wrong and another to tell lies–and padding lies in superlatives doesn’t somehow weight the outcome!

    It’s very odd that you take Monckton’s amateur-hour report as valid despite its constant invective and its many junk arguments, but don’t take the IPCC report or scientific papers as having worth. Monckton gets a free pass, and scientists are damned no matter what? Weird.

    Unfortunately, it would take two full workdays for me to thoroughly hit Monckton’s latest garbage–this is the so-called “Gish Gallop” or “crapflood” tactic. But you might have some fun playing a “Where’s Waldo” style game and seeing how many bad arguments and mispresentations of the facts you can spot per page.

    Or if you want an easier one, just figure out how many months Monckton is out of date about the Argo project data–just how long ago the author released a correction. It wasn’t last week, nor last month, nor last year.

  3. comment number 3 by: admin

    It’s really a case of “garbage in – garbage out.” Let’s see what happens when all the other (Hansen’s NASA) *raw* data set are released so that their probable fudges and finagles can be objectively examined, critiqued and if possible justified. CRU has already been shown to be fraudulent. Ditto New Zealand and I think Australia too. If the physical measurements are shown to be bogus the whole thing goes out the window.

    You continue to mistake my argument as a scientific one. I object to the global warming thing on the basis that I detect a mob mentality about it — “deniers,” “settled science,” “everyone agrees,” “crisis,” “oceans rising,” “polar bears,” etc.

    Bookmark this page. In three years or less I predict that you won’t find anyone who will admit that they ever believed in the religion of global warming, much less anyone who will admit that they participated in it.

  4. comment number 4 by: admin

    Addendum: a link discussing science & politics.

    Includes lots of discussions.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.