Corcoran: Remember Amazongate? (3)

Climate scientists attached to the rickety Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change structure raise two key interchangeable arguments in their defense. The first is to deny that anything of significance has been found in the various IPCC scandals. Climategate? Nothing there but a few emails that display intemperate behaviour and typical charmless chat among scientists doing their jobs.

“Scientists are not public relations experts,” say the apologists. Glaciergate and the melting Himalayan ice? Insignificant — barely a footnote in the official IPCC reports, and a minor mistake in any case; there’s nothing here to cast doubt on the thousands of pages of good work by thousands of scientists. “Regrettably, there were a very small number of errors,” said UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Wednesday after announcing the appointment of a review panel to investigate those tiny little errors, produce a report and move on, preferably by August before the next round of panic-ridden climate talks.

The second official line of defense is to attempt to deny the very existence of any mistakes, errors or butchered science. Denial, in fact, is often the first strategy deployed when any criticism surfaces. Then, if the story of scientific error is proven true, the mistakes are then dismissed and trivialized as of no consequence.

If this strategy of denial, diminishment, trivialization and dismissal succeeds it will only be because most people will not pay close enough attention to the issues. The Climategate emails, thousands of exchanges among scientists working on temperature records and forecasts, are dense and unintelligible to all but the most intrepid and diligent. You may even have to be half crazy to try to work through the emails and piece together the story lines and threads.

[More]

See Also:

Peiser: Climate libel chill

Senator Barrasso: Why Won’t Congressional Democrats Permit Science Oversight Hearings?

Life Imitates Satire

This entry was posted in Featured and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Corcoran: Remember Amazongate? (3)

  1. John Luft says:

    Once again…..they were NOT “errors”. They were deliberately inserted into the reports. It was nothing short of fraud.

  2. Jack says:

    Re: #1 – “Agreed” and I’m working on this bunch of shysters.  I probably am boring my peanut gallery but I do what I can.

  3. Jema54 says:

    The Climate shysters have lost all credibility. They need to be trashed, Jack, but the fact that they are still trying to flog their agenda means that you are not wasting your time. We need to keep their planned crimes against humans on the frount burner, keep the burner on high and keep frying…

    People do know about the lies and they know that the climate control (Earth saving) was never the goal of the cult scientists, we know it was a plot to decap the individual economic sovereignty of nations and individuals by making us economic slaves via regulations and ‘carbon’ fines (paying for natural hot air) .

    The cult promoters know that we know.. Evidence of this is the lack of ‘outrage’ over Max Bernier’s statements about the hoax, the squalling and howling that we would have expected (if they had any steam) from msm and the Troika (Liberanos/Dippers/Blocheads), just is not happening. Why? The msm and the Troika had a hissy fit about Mad Max’s gal with the cleavage, yet nothing about the Climategate article. Shows, IMO, that they know that Climate (temperature) is not a club anymore – more like a wet string of spaghetti – and they are attempting to re write the fairytale before their pals lose every red cent that they had invested in the hoax.

  4. Jack says:

    I’ll keep it up, Jema because you understand.  That’s all I can say.

  5. stageleft says:

    I’ve quit worrying about it, and the continuing fights between those who say that humans have significantly impacted the planetary environment, and those who say we have not, now do little more than amuse me.

    While everyone was out there fighting and arguing and hurling insults at each other a shift towards a more responsible and sustainable interaction with our environment began occurring and gathering momentum – quite frankly it doesn’t matter anymore how many deniers or skeptics think what about the IPCC and its’ reports. They will not be able to overcome the momentum towards that more responsible and sustainable interaction with our environment that I mentioned – they can’t, it’s gone to far.

    It’s exactly like those who argued against women wearing pants, or voting, or making their own decisions, even after it became patiently evident that their protestations were falling on deaf ears….. or those who argued against integrated schools and restaurants and interracial marriages long after the writing had not only appeared on the wall but was illuminated at night by huge spot lights.

    They were the dinosaurs of their day, and at a certain point their effect became negligible because the tipping point of the issue had been reached, and if you take a good hard look around you I think you’ll find that the effect the opinions of the deniers and the skeptics have is quickly reaching negligible.

    Nobody cares about the fight anymore except those involved in the fight, and those involved in the fight are to busy fighting to see that. The generation that followed ours has already made up their minds, and they’re not exactly respectful of the positions of the skeptic or the deniers — as a matter of fact anger is the common emotion.

    I’m not sure when the tipping point was reached on our environment and how we as a society should deal with that, but I firmly believe that we are passed it, and whether the skeptics like it or not things are changing and that will not stop.

    As in previous generations with previous issues there will be the dinosaurs who complain bitterly, and decry the changes, but they will, I believe, soon find themselves lumped in with the folks who continue to believe in the rightness of segregated proms, a womans place being in the kitchen, and openly gay and lesbian couples shouldn’t be allowed to get married or attend proms.

    Given that the battle is over the question you have to ask yourself now is how you would be prefer to be remembered by future generations.

  6. Cynapse says:

    stageleft … that post is appropriate for so many topics argued here and elsewhere. Be sure to save it to your hard drive – you’d be surprised how many times you can simply copy and paste.

  7. stageleft says:

    Odd you should say that, as I fleshed it out I decided that it will form the basis of a post at my site – so I copied it into a text file on my desktop to rework :-)

  8. hynd says:

    There is only one problem with your argument Stageleft, the tipping point on the environment may have been reached. However AGW is not about the environment, never has been and never will be. In fact AGW has absolutely no environmental components at all.

  9. Cynapse says:

    hynd, are you sure about that? It seems that the anti-AGW movement is more concerned about paying taxes than the environment. Hence, if the solution to AGW really did involve more taxes you’d focus entirely on that.

  10. Jema54 says:

    Cynapse – you answered your own question – AGW was indeed all about increasing taxes in the name of a fraudulent objective.

Comments are closed.