Byron W. King
Third in this series of unfortunate crashes, we have the reputation of the so-called science of global warming.
It's more like "political" science now -- literally -- and there are 3,000 e-mails to prove it.
Last week, the global warming movement crashed, along with its holier-than-thou "only we can save the world" aura of empirical certitude. Down with the ship went the last semblance of unblinking, unthinking willingness to submit to draconian, Procrustean "cap and trade" legislation against fossil fuels.
The cause of the crash was a batch of purloined e-mails from the University of East Anglia and its so-called Climate Research Unit (Climate Research Fabrication Unit is more like it). When the contents of the e-mails hit the fan, the U.K. Telegraph
headlined that "This Is the Worst Scientific Scandal of Our Generation."
On this last point, we can now see how much of the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide (CO2), and related "global warming," marches to a drumbeat that permits no foot to fall out of step. The East Anglia e-mails reveal a transnational cabal of scientists whose ethics and methods mirror those of Stalin's favorite biologist, Comrade Trofim Lysenko.
That is, these modern Merlins of global warming have massaged the climate data to fit their preconceived anti-CO2 theories. For many years, the climate change Godfathers have humiliated and intimidated scientists who dared to disagree. They've squashed dissent. They've blackballed academic journals that didn't toe the line of politically correct global warming wisdom. And they've done it all under the rubric of "peer-reviewed" science -- where they are the peers über alles.
Nice work, if you can get it.
The global warming crowd claims that the climate change is a phenomenon that's wholly man-made -- mostly in the industrialized West, and particularly by industries in the U.S. of A. The science is settled, they claim. You can't argue with it. No, indeed. And how convenient!
But as someone who studied geology (admittedly at Harvard, where they've been teaching the subject only since 1787) and has been in and around the earth sciences for over 35 years, I always wondered why the proposed remedies for global warming and climate change are not really solutions to the alleged problem.
I mean, the so-called remedies for global warming mostly call for U.S. and other Western nations to pay high-energy taxes on carbon-based fuels. And the remedies call for the West -- especially the U.S. -- dramatically to curtail CO2-emitting energy sources. Oh, and Wall Street will be able to trade "carbon credits," like it’s done with such success in the field of mortgage-backed securities and the like.
Meanwhile, under the proposed cap-and-trade schemes, the developing world gets a whole banana boat full of unspecified "climate reparations" from the West, all while burning lots of coal and using more and more energy from any and every source. Huh?
To my way of seeing things, the proposed remedies for global warming never added up. Now, with the release of the East Anglia e-mails, we know that things were never supposed to add up. The whole global warming and remedies process is designed to lasso a perceived "environmental" problem and use it to fulfill a laundry list of campus-Marxist political agendas. And quite a bit of the mainstream West swallowed it, hook, line and sinker.
Now that the cat is out of the bag (to change metaphors), is cap and trade dead? Have we reached a teachable moment about things like future energy use and industrial development? Will we see a period of backing down and thorough re-examination?
Or are there too many big shots, with too much ego and too much money, already too invested in the man-caused global warming process to admit of any doubt? Follow the money, I suppose.