The appearance of concern may overshadow reality …

There is no doubt in my mind that the environmental movement in the United States and elsewhere has been infiltrated by socialists, communists, anarchists and others who have discovered that non-profit tax-exempt organizations simultaneously allow them to raise significant amounts of money from unaware do-gooders and to pursue a comprehensive political agenda without being sanctioned by the authorities for meddling in politics. For radicals, this is the best of all worlds – allowing them to influence politicians and public policy makers without revealing their own hidden agenda.

Using our own laws against us …

By subverting our own legal infrastructure and using our own laws against us, those radicals in the environmental movement are able to hurt our military, our economy and further restrict the freedoms and liberties which were won with blood, sweat and tears. Freedoms protected by those fighting in foreign lands to keep us safe and to extend human rights and individual freedoms to those who remain oppressed by those who deny their citizens even the most basic of human rights.

The greatest example, up to now, has been the environmental movement’s campaign against nuclear arms and energy generation. Mainly for impacting the development of the nuclear arms which keeps us safe from aggression and the source of cost-effective, sustainable and renewable nuclear power generation which would provide a large measure of energy independence, the ability to significantly grow our economy and avoid transferring significant amounts of money to our enemies.

A confluence of evil influence …

Unfortunately, the agenda of the environmental movement is being adopted by others who see the benefits being enjoyed by the so-called environmentalists.

• Being able to raise funding from the public with little more than press releases and reports.
• Being able to shelter a significant portion of their revenue from the tax collector while investing in properties not subject to ordinary taxation. Not to mention the relaxed reporting standards which keeps the public from prying into the private affairs of the organization and its leadership.
• Being able to direct funding to friends and other special interests to secure additional support and political influence. 
• Being able to earn a good living while traveling the world in grand style – ostensibly to promote the good works of the organization.
• Being able to secure favorable media attention with a minimum of scrutiny or critical analysis.

Thus we see corporations join the movement to enhance revenues and media coverage. We see institutions promoting the movement to ensure continuing funding and government support. And worst of all, we see governments sign on to the movement for the significant benefits of having a rallying point for their own political agendas.

• Raising tax revenues, both directly, through tax assessments, and indirectly through third-party taxes passed along to consumers by a service provider. One need only look at their utility bills (water, power, telephone) or the notice on your gas pump to see the extent of this indirect taxation methodology. The government has a vested interest in higher prices as their tax revenues are often based on the total purchase price of goods and services.
• Supporting the special interests which result in further campaign contributions and voter support.
• Curtailing the freedom of choice in order to alter the behavior of  citizens. Here in California, the State has deliberately chosen to make driving on our roads as difficult as possible to promote the “mass transit” strategy that is being foisted on the public by the “enlightened leftists” who control California’s legislature.

The real problem with the science is politics …

It appears that many in the environmental movement have gone beyond a science-based approach to public policy and have adopted radical socialist Saul Alinsky’s “Rule for Radicals” to condition the debate. Shouting down the opponents who believe that the variability of solar output, the Earth’s orbit around the Sun, the behavior of deep ocean currents, the action of the most prevalent “greenhouse” gas water vapor, and the output of volcanoes and other natural processes vastly trump man’s puny ability to influence nature. Basing public policy less- and-less on the science and more-and- more on a self-serving political agenda and economics which adversely impacts the citizens who have elected politicians to represent them.

The simple truth: Why Carbon Dioxide?

Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring gas that is necessary to sustain life on Earth. In fact, greater concentrations of carbon dioxide in the past appear to have been beneficial to plant life, and by extension, human life. But the reason the environmental movement must demonize carbon dioxide is that it is the key to controlling energy production and can provide a political stranglehold on our economy and environment. Serving as the basis to control the economy in the same manner that the Obamacare legislation would allow politicians to exert greater control over our individual lives.

The basis of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming goes something like this: man’s increasing emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is causing perilous global warming which, if unchecked by government intervention, may result in the destruction of life as we know it. Or at least make it extremely uncomfortable.

I call bullshit …

Occam's razor (entia non sunt multiplicanda prater necessitatem) is a nice way of saying things should not be overly complicated and that among competing theories, the simplest one is more likely to be the truth.

So applying Occam’s Razor to global warming, we should consider the following …

One, the Earth has been much colder and hotter than it is presently;

Two, the concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide have been lesser and greater than they are presently;

Three, carbon dioxide is part of a life-sustaining natural feedback loop which keeps the carbon dioxide dissolved in the oceans and the carbon dioxide found in the atmosphere somewhat stable.

Four, that the rise in the carbon dioxide levels LAGS the rise in temperature which tends to say that carbon dioxide is not a causal agent of the warming, but an after-effect. And this can be demonstrated by considering a recently-opened ice-cold beer. As the beer warms, carbon dioxide comes out of solution (the oceans) and enters the atmosphere where the concentration of carbon dioxide has seemingly increased.

Five, the accumulation of atmospheric heat resulting from greenhouse gases should be seen in the troposphere – but no evidence of warming can be found.

Add to this the relative scarcity of actual temperature measurement sites, the increasing urbanization of areas in which temperatures are measured and the fact that heavily-massaged data is fed into computer models which do not seem to mirror short-term global climate behavior and you have the basis for scientific skepticism. 

The mainstream media is not helping with their biased reporting …

One of the most obnoxious trends in the coverage of the science related to global climatology is the apparent biased reporting that seems to be prevalent in the mainstream media. Some publications will report news which seems to suggest that global climate change is not man-made and thus cannot be ameliorated by man’s efforts, but bury the report in the lesser-viewed sections of the publication. Others will “pick and choose” which facts they report or assign pejorative terms such as “rightwing blogosphere” or characterize the source as a “denier.”  The real story is not getting out.

Peer review is not always the answer …

Most people believe that “peer-reviewed” publications are the be-all and end-all in scientific reporting. Something which can be, depending on the publication, far from the truth. Peer review is an internal process that prepares a scientist’s work for publication, correcting obvious errors and bring more clarity to the paper. Very rarely are fundamental assumptions and the hypothesis questioned as this is the purpose for publishing. The process can be easily subverted by the politics of the publication, the interests of the publication’s leadership and, of course, the selection of those who will peer review the paper. And, in most cases paper authors do not need to provide access to the underlying data and computer programs which were used as the basis for the original research.

If there is any take-away from this blog entry, it should be the knowledge that peer-reviewed does not mean that the position of the paper’s author or authors has been independently confirmed. That is the subject matter for additional papers and research.

Scientists as bitchy little girls …

Scientists are like other humans, with the same foibles and propensity to shade their findings in order to secure recognition and funding for their projects. Their work is highly influenced by those funding the research – and it would be naive to believe projects which fundamentally challenge the work of the institution, its leadership or other scientists would be look upon favorably. Many scientists live in a “publish or perish” environment and their work is complicated by securing profitable funding for the institution and managing their graduate students.

The purloined letters …

Numerous media reports are covering the alleged “hacking” of servers belonging to a prestigious climate research organization. While the leftists are loudly crying foul over the release of e-mails, computer code and other materials on the Internet, one should remember that many of these very same people hailed the release of the stolen classified  “Pentagon Papers” as a blow for freedom. They are now on the Internet, so wailing about spilt milk seems disingenuous.

Damage Control …

Many are subtly questioning the validity of the released material. Others are questioning whether or not the information released has been edited for effect or taken out of context. Even if we are provided a “glimpse” of what is being discussed among scientists, this should serve to raise our awareness of potential manipulation of the data, the computer programs, the delivered papers and the positions taken by various scientists.

What can we learn ….

While this is but a smattering of data, let us consider a few things that were revealed.

What does peer review look like …

Is peer review free from bias, manipulation and fraud?

Using the peer-review process to silence critics and those with lesser credentials…

It appears that some journals are extremely “clique-oriented” and seem to have a “preferred line of inquiry.”

Researchers seeking  assistance from others …

The random conversations between colleagues …

Testing data and alternative theories …

Of course, some of the documents appear to create the impression that the data may have been manipulated to achieve a specific result.

Settled Science or preconceived notions by people trying to prove a point ?

Or something more sinister?

The smoking gun …

If there is anything to be learned from these leaked documents, it is that scientists work with others of like mind and similar attitudes and beliefs. And while there are embarrassing conversations not meant for public scrutiny or details of who funded which project – the great majority of this material proves nothing except that there might be a loosely-coupled conspiracy among those who want to promote their own position and who are fighting to have their work considered and included within larger programs.

Yes, there are hints of data manipulation: replacing of raw data with estimates, removing outlier data which does not fit the central thesis, the creation of data by interpolation where none exists. But unless the researcher has good cause to engage in manipulating the data or the computer program, the real results will eventually be published. One reason why we cannot allow politicians to rush to judgement when it comes to implementing drastic public policies on the basis of on-going science.

There are also hints of deliberate manipulation and distortion of the data. All of which needed to be thoroughly investigated and, if true, sanctioned.

Bottom line …

The proponents will promote, the deniers will deny – and the public will be screwed over by corrupt or complacent politicians who are manipulating the science for their own personal and political self-interests.

Scientists will be held accountable by peers and those who have been sloppy with their research will be mocked. Those who are likely to be proven wrong will alter their research or move on to more fertile areas. Those who have led their institutions astray will be sanctioned. Such is the way of big science. People should remember, it only takes one dissenting opinion to start the debate and that most science builds upon the work of others. Science is not done by consensus and groupthink. It is an ongoing process of discovery, enlightenment, explanation and education.

It is now time to consider the "official" pronouncements of a relatively small group of scientists and scientific organizations who have driven the debate and shouted down, with the complicity of politicians and the media, those who disagree or merely want to debate. Government agencies which sanctioned employees who disagreed with the central thesis of global warming need to be investigated and those responsible for suppressing the truth or credible dissent dismissed without their retirement bonuses.

Considering the leak of these materials, there appears to be no rational reason why we should allow our elected representatives to push a hostile and toxic political program such as cap-and-trade forward when the science is still unsettled and the consensus subject to political manipulation.

-- steve

Reference Links:

For those wishing more information, I suggest that you might want to read the Investor's Business Daily editorial.

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works