The Hillary treatment for climate fraudsters?

State AG actions reveal double standard for scientists who promote alarmist climate claims

erictheredThis past March, 17 attorneys general launched a coordinated effort to investigate, pursue, and prosecute companies, think tanks, and other organizations who say there is little credible evidence that human “greenhouse gas” emissions are causing “dangerous” or “catastrophic” man-made climate change.

The AGs said their targets’ actions constitute “fraud” – which they described as using “polished public relations campaigns” to “muddle the truth,” “discredit prevailing climate science,” and “mislead” people about threats from higher temperatures, rising seas, floods, and more severe weather. Their real goal is to intimidate and silence targeted groups, and bankrupt them with legal fees, court costs, and lost funding.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute, CFACT, ExxonMobil, and other “climate denier” organizations fought back vigorously, refusing to surrender their constitutional rights to participate in this vital public policy debate. The AGs’ bravado and prosecutions began fraying at the edges.

But one wonders: How will these intrepid protectors of the public interest respond to Real Climate Fraud? To intentional misrepresentations of material facts, with knowledge of their falsity, and for the purpose of inducing persons or institutions to act, with resulting injury or damage.

Will those AGs – or other state AGs, Congress, state legislatures, or the Justice Department – investigate the growing list of highly questionable actions by scientists and others who receive billions in taxpayer and consumer funds for renewable energy programs and research into man-made climate cataclysm scares … to justify policies, laws, and regulations that raise energy costs, destroy fossil fuel companies and jobs, force layoffs in other industries, and harm poor, minority, and working class families?

Or will they respond the way FBI Director James Comey did to Hillary Clinton’s reckless disregard for national security secrets: come(d)yignore the bad conduct, and reward transgressors with more money, prestige, and power?

The case for widespread misconduct by members of the $1.5-trillion-per-year Climate Change & Renewable Energy Complex grows more compelling, and disturbing, by the day. A complete listing and analysis would require books, but these few examples underscore the seriousness of the global problem.

Crisis fabrication.  After warming 1910-40, cooling 1940-75, warming 1975-98, not budging 1998-2015, Earth warmed slightly 2015-16 amid a strong El Niño. No category 3-5 hurricane has hit the United States for a record 10-1/2 years. Seas are rising at 7 inches per century. Arctic ice is near normal; Antarctic ice at a record high. There are more polar bears than ever.

But the White House, the EPA, the UN, and media falsely claim we face an unprecedented crisis – and must quickly replace reliable, affordable hydrocarbons with expensive, subsidized, unreliable renewable energy, and let unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats control our lives, livelihoods, and living standards. Any warming, any weather event, is our fault – the result of using fossil fuels to power our economy.

antar

Meanwhile somewhere in Antarctica, a small group of Australian taxpayer funded “climate scientists” are busy in the field to prove that anthropological global warming is a dangerous reality.

Data manipulation. When actual measurements don’t support climate chaos claims, dishonest scientists “homogenize” and manipulate them to create imaginary warming trends. Phil Jones, his British team and their U.S. counterparts eliminated centuries of Little Ice Age cooling and created new records showing planetary temperatures suddenly spiking in recent decades. They used ClimateGate emails to devise devious schemes preventing outside analysts from examining their data, computer algorithms, and methodologies – and then “lost” information that peer reviewers wanted to examine.

NOAA’s clever climate consortium adjusted accurate sea-surface temperature data from scientific ocean buoys upward by a quarter-degree, to “homogenize” them with records from engine intake systems contaminated by shipboard heat – thereby creating a previously undetected warming trend.

Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology revised Rutherglen weather station data to convert 100 years of data showing a slight cooling trend into a warming of several degrees per century. As with other “adjustments” (by NASA, for instance), the revisions always create warming trends – never a slight cooling – and climate crisis scientists always say humans caused the warming, even though they are unable to separate natural forces, cycles, and fluctuations from alleged human influences.

GIGO computer models. Climate models assume post-1975 warming is due to man-made carbon dioxide; exaggerate climate telescamsensitivity to CO2 levels; and simplify or ignore vital natural forces like solar energy variations, cosmic ray fluxes, heat-reflecting clouds, and recurrent phenomena like El Niño and La Niña. They conjure up “scenarios” that alarmists treat as valid predictions of what will happen if we don’t slash fossil fuel use. Models replace actual evidence, and play an important role in climate battles.

It’s complete GIGO: Faulty assumptions, data, algorithms, analytical methodologies, and other garbage in – predictive garbage out. That’s why “hockey stick” and other models are so out of touch with reality. In fact, an official IPCC graph showed that every UN climate model between 1990 and 2012 predicted that average global temperatures would be as much as 0.9º C (1.6º F) higher than they actually were! The inconvenient graph was revised for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2014 report.

Report manipulation. Activists and bureaucrats always finalize the Summary for Policymakers, the only IPCC climate document that most voters, elected officials, and journalists ever read. They want to ensure that already politicized climate “science” does not undermine or contradict political themes and agendas.

A 1995 State Department document reveals the extent of this interference and manipulation. The 30-page document gave detailed instructions as to how the Clinton White House wanted the summary’s scientific explanations and conclusions revised, to make alleged climate and weather trends even more worrisome. Donna Laframboise and others document the bias, distortion, and deception that dominate IPCC actions.

Consensus fabrication. Claims of a 97% consensus on climate cataclysm science are likewise slippery, and based on bait-and-switch tactics that look only at study abstracts of studies and then misrepresent what the abstracts say, ask one question but base their conclusions on a different one, or use other strategies and misrepresentations to hide the disagreements and debates that still dominate this topic.

carbon-dioxide-injection-5-728Cost-benefit falsification. The U.S. Government has mastered this fraudulent tactic, especially in its “social cost of carbon” calculations. The EPA and other agencies blame methane and CO2 emissions for every conceivable impact on agriculture, forests, water resources, “forced migration” of people and wildlife, human health and disease, rising sea levels, flooded coastal cities, too much or too little rain. They totally ignore the way more CO2 makes plants grow faster and better, with less water.

They also ignore the enormous benefits of fossil fuels for 80% of all the energy we use to transport people and products, generate reliable, affordable electricity, and manufacture fertilizers, plastics, and thousands of other products. And they ignore the ways anti-energy regulations raise hospital, factory, and small business costs, kill jobs, and reduce living standards, health and welfare for millions of people.

Why would they do these things? The U.S. federal government alone spent $11.6 billion on “green” energy and climate “research” muskyand “mitigation” programs in 2014. That money did not go to scientists who question “dangerous man-made climate change” doctrines.

Recipients and their parent institutions are determined to preserve this funding, protect their reputations and prestige, and maintain their influence and control over policies, laws, regulations, and wind, solar, and biofuel mandates and subsidies. It is all inextricably tied to silencing inconvenient questions and, if needs be, engaging in systemic, systematic exaggeration, falsification and misrepresentation. And then they claim these Orwellian tactics are Best Practice standards, essential for quality control in climate science!

So, AGs, by all means let’s investigate. But let’s not criminalize differences of opinion. Let’s root out actual fraud, let real science prevail, and protect our livelihoods and living standards from unscrupulous people and organizations that are using fraudulent climate chaos claims to control energy use, transform the U.S. and global economic systems, and redistribute the world’s wealth.

Categories

About the Author: Paul Driessen

Paul Driessen

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for CFACT and author of Cracking Big Green and Eco-Imperialism: Green Power - Black Death.

  • Brin Jenkins

    It is thought, and everyone knows will not do. Proof and absolute observation without computer models, or allow that others hold the correct viewpoint. The onus is on the change camp to explain so all understand, the idea that only the “clever ones” can hold an informed position is arrogant and stupid.

    • Denis Ables

      They have no empirical evidence. Even lacking insofar as correlation, the only one tracking both up and down trends over the past few hundred thousand years shows temperature variaton FIRST and 800 to 2800 years LATER, very similar co2 variation.

      No empirical evidnence, No correlation apart from the 1975 to 1998 warming as co2 increased. But…. co2 has been increasing since the mid 1800s. However, our current warming began by definition, at the bottom of the LIA in the 1600s, two centuries BEFORE co2 began rising. That’s 200 years of NATURAL warming and it would have taken another century for co2 level before it could have possibly had any impact on temperature. That’s 300 years of NATURAL warming which brings us to about 1950s. But from 1940s to 1970s was a mild cooling, so the ONLY increasing warming POSSIBLY related to human activity happened between 1975 and 1998…. but then stopped. No additional warming since then.

  • Denis Ables

    Some of the alarmists are claiming that the hiatus according to weather satellite measurements (1998 – 2015/2016) is not long enough to establish a trend. It’s not a prediction it’s just data which cannot be explained by the alarmist’s computer models. However, now these folks are demanding 30 years of hiatus. (But wait….. their warming is only 23 years, (1975 to 1998) so what’s this ruckus about?