My dear grandmother on my father’s side believed until her dying day that “the landing on the moon was fake but wrestling is real.” There was no sense presenting her with evidence concerning the validity of the moon landing. She decided that from the beginning that “President Kennedy dreamed the whole thing up and NASA had to go along because he was the president. “ “But grandma,” I used to say, “They brought back rocks and we saw the landing on T.V.” “Nonsense,” she would growl, “Those rocks came from Florida and all that T.V. stuff was straight out of Hollywood.”
Any attempt to convince her that wresting was straight out of a bad play production was also futile. She had more faith in Rick Flair, Wahoo McDaniel, and Andrea the Giant, than she did in Neil Armstrong, Buzz Alderin, and Mike Collins. Facts, even irrefutable facts, had no effect on my grandmother. She would just smile, lean forward, and say, “Some people can make the facts say whatever you want them to say.”
We now know the scientists at the formerly prestigious Climate Research Unit (CRU) agree with my grandmother’s philosophy of fact manipulation. Leaked documents and hacked emails have surfaced that point to widespread data deception and manipulation as well as outright suppression of facts that contradict the party line on manmade climate change. There can now be little doubt that science has been twisted for social and political ends.
It began with Al Gore’s wildly popular (at least among environmentalists) documentary An Inconvenient Truth. The former Vice-President-turned-carbon-footprint-hawker shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Accepting the award in Oslo, Gore said, “We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity.”
No so said a British court. When then Environment Secretary David Miliband convinced the British government to send copies of An Inconvenient Truth to all British Schools, a British truck driver and part time school governor sued the government claiming the film pushes “partisan political views.” A British court reviewed the film and sided with the truck driver. The court issued a statement requiring teachers to make clear to their students that the film was “a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.”
The court also found “eleven inaccuracies” and ruled they must “be specifically drawn to the attention of the school children.” The inaccuracies ranged from the claim that Lake Chad, which borders on northeastern Nigeria, dried up because of global warming (proven wrong by government experts on climate change) to the fact that polar bears had drowned because of disappearing arctic ice (Gore misread the report…the bears drowned in a violent storm).
So the so-called fact of climate change isn’t backed up by the facts offered by Al Gore. Now we know why. The facts Al Gore relied on are the same facts the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change relied on. They are facts that we now know were not facts at all but were deliberately manipulated by the scientists closely associated with the Climate Research Unit to lead an entire world astray.
The inconvenient lie of climate change has been brought out of the shadows of scientific doublespeak and into the light of revealing emails that prove manipulation of the facts. The leaked emails from climate change giants such as Phil Jones, the current Director of the CRU, Tom Wigley, Michael Mann, Hubert Lamb, and a host of others reveal three shocking strands of a tightly woven web of deception.
First, the emails show a systematic refusal to release the data that forms the basis for the computer models that scientists use to prove the planet is heating up. In fact, according to the emails, scientists are encouraged to delete large chunks of data and to claim other large chunks were simply “lost.”
Second, it is obvious from the emails and leaked documents that the CRU scientists tried to manipulate data through tortuous computer programs designed to always lower past temperature and adjust recent temperatures upward to convey the impression of accelerated warming.
Finally, the emails and documents reveals the ruthless way in which scientists who defend the faulty climate change data have attempted to intimidate into silence any expert who questions their findings and challenges the faulty methods used to reach their false conclusions. In much the same way Intelligent Design proponents were drummed out of the science of biology this handful of powerful influential scientists threatened to freeze out and fully discredit any scientific journal that published the findings of detractors. True scientific debate was stifled so a political face could be drawn on a scientific straw man.
The question is why. The answer is simple. When communism suffered the ultimate setback of the failure of the Soviet Union and the falling of the Berlin Wall its proponents simply scattered into the radical environmental movement. There, they were reborn as climate change gurus, who warned that apart from global government intervention the world would come to an end. Global government intervention means the shifting of wealth away from evil, polluting, carbon gas emitting, industrialized countries to third world countries and the submission of all countries to a U.N. backed treaty that will ultimately lead to the confiscation of private property and bankruptcy. This is the goal of the push to reach a climate change agreement this month in Copenhagen.
Maybe my grandmother was right. Not about the moon landing and wrestling but about her belief that “some people can make the facts say whatever they want them to say.”