|최근 방문 블로거||더보기|
Yet Another Climate-Change Scandal
The real peril comes from the economically catastrophic policies being pushed in its name.
By JAMES DELINGPOLE 월스트리트 저널 11-27-2011
Climategate 2.0. Is it (a) the gift that goes on giving? Or (b) an act of "sabotage" whose seriousness merits investigation by "the full force of the world's intelligence community" so that the perpetrators can be brought to justice?
The correct answer depends on who you are, of course. If you're a climate skeptic it's going to be (a). If you're U.S. Congressman Ed Markey (or any his fellow-travelers on the great Man Made Global Warming gravy train) it's inevitably going to be (b). Unless, perhaps it's (c) a tired, warmed-over non-story of no significance whatsoever. But how are we supposed to make up our minds?
Let's deal with the facts first. Climategate 2.0 concerns the recent release onto the Internet by persons unknown of 5,000 files of private email correspondence between several of the world's top climate scientists. These include men like Michael Mann of Penn State University and the University of East Anglia's Phil Jones, whose reports inform what President Obama has called "the gold standard" of international climate science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The release of these new emails was timed to coincide with the second anniversary of the original Climategate leak and with the forthcoming U.N. climate summit in Durban, South Africa. Hence the concern of Rep. Markey expressed above. By his lights, this is nothing less than a devilish plot to undermine the good work of the world's governments as they try to save the planet from the burning hell of man-made global warming.
Is it really, though? One could more easily sympathize with Rep. Markey's outrage if, say, the hacker had maliciously rewritten or invented the emails so as to cast decent climate scientists in an unflattering light. But this isn't the case. At least one scientist involved—Prof. Mann—has confirmed that these emails are genuine. So any skullduggery or malfeasance revealed therein ought surely to be blamed on the scientists who wrote them rather than the whistleblower who exposed them.
Consider, for example, this email from the aforementioned Mr. Mann, written in August 2007. "I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thus far unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests. Perhaps the same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy."
Keenan is Doug Keenan, a skeptic and gadfly of the climate-change establishment. McIntyre is, of course, Steve McIntyre—the tenacious Canadian ex-mining engineer whose dogged research helped expose the flaws in Mr. Mann's "hockey stick" graph of global temperatures. One can understand Mr. Mann's irritation. His hockey stick, which purported to demonstrate the link between man-made carbon emissions and catastrophic global warming, was the central pillar of the IPCC's Third Assessment Report and brought him near-legendary status in the climate science community. Naturally he wanted to put Mr. McIntyre in his place.
But according to conventional scientific method, the way to have achieved this would have been to prove Mr. McIntyre wrong using facts and evidence and improved data. Instead, as we see above, Mr. Mann resorted to character assassination. This is not—one might reasonably infer—the behavior of a perfectly innocent scientist with nothing to hide. If the case for man-made global warming is really as strong as the so-called "consensus" claims it is, what need have all those climate scientists to behave so cagily? Why are they shown in emails deliberately conspiring to shut out of the debate scientists with dissenting points of view? Why must they manipulate data, using cheats like the infamous "hide the decline" email from Prof. Jones?
This is the real significance of the Climategate and Climategate 2.0 emails. In vain will you search them for killer lines like "Tee hee! I wonder how much longer we can get away with this crazy, dishonest scam." It's more subtle than that. What the emails show is that the scientists who inform the IPCC can't be trusted to stick to the science and not to wander into the realm of political activism. This in turn has very worrying implications for the major international policy decisions being adopted on the basis of their flawed, exaggerated reports.
Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the new emails is not so much the content (little more is revealed that we didn't know already from Climategate 1.0) as the introductory notes from the person calling himself "FOIA" who leaked them onto the internet, explaining for the first time his or her motivation.
FOIA writes: "Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day. Every day nearly 16,000 children die from hunger and related causes. One dollar can save a life . . . Poverty is a death sentence. Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.Today's decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on hiding the decline."
The real peril of "Climate Change" is not the increasingly shaky theory of anthropogenic global warming but the sweeping, eye-wateringly expensive, economically catastrophic policies being introduced on the basis of little more than junk science. On the eve of the U.N.'s Durban climate summit, just as he did two years ago before Copenhagen, the anonymous leaker FOIA has done the causes of truth, rationalism and global justice an enormous favor.
Mr. Delingpole is the author of "Watermelons" (Publius, 2011).
|CO2 지구 온난화 사기|