There long has been a large body of scientific evidence debunking Global Warming scaremongering. The late Michael Crichton, in his novel State of Fear portrayed eco-terrorists in an environmental movement gone amok. In extensive appendices to the book, he presented many scientific counter-arguments to Global Warming. Crichton, who died last year, was an author, producer, screenwriter and a medical school graduate with deep scientific acumen that enlightened his books. Crichton’s premise in State of Fear was that radicals are distorting science for political purposes and he provided many proofs in his appendix. State of Fear was published two years before the greatest political scaremongering scientific distortion of modern times, Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth.
Now comes the hacked materials from East Anglia University that provide a “smoking gun” for Crichton’s allegations. Prominent Global Warming advocates (it’s hard to call them “scientists” now) are clearly shown to be engaged in attempting to quash dissent, distort the peer-review process and otherwise claim an “overwhelming consensus” for anthropogenic Global Warming when, in fact, there is no such consensus.
That the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) and the massive, global environmental political movement are incompetent, corrupt organizations subject to a myriad of political forces now has been clearly shown. Crichton would have been proud.
Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth book and film rehashed the IPPC’s propaganda to frighten the masses into believing a lie—that anthropogenic global warming has been proven and apocalyptic effects are around the corner—for Gore’s far-left political purposes. The East Anglia documents even provide the complicity link between advocates like Gore and the leftist media, particularly The New York Times.
What the East Anglia documents prove aside from the fact that the IPPC, Gore and other scaremongers have been distorting the peer review process and doing everything they could to prevent contrarian science from receiving a fair hearing, is that it’s becoming increasingly difficult to lie and cheat in the Internet/computer age. That’s another tremendous benefit of technology to humankind.
My prediction is that there will be more of this type of unraveling of the global socialist/environmental movement. If anything is on a computer that is connected to the Internet, it will become known eventually. And while it may be frightening to some people--especially those who claim there is anything like a "secure" computer system--that is a very good thing! Many "Inconvenient Truths" are likely to become exposed as "Convenient Lies". Just don't believe another convenient lie, that there is anything resembling a "secure" computer system--a warning to those of us involved in building a 'smart grid' reaching into everyone's home and office. If it's connected in any way, it isn't secure.
A recent study (http://www.ecoalign.com/news/ecopinion/climate-cha...) stated something that I found interesting. It basically said that people's worldview impacts more how they view climate change than the numbers or evidences at hand.
"[T]here is a hard core group of Americans (approximately 5 percent) who firmly believe that climate change is a "hoax," "lie," "fake" and/or "politically-motivated." Older men (55+) who are Republicans are more likely to hold these views on climate change."
In a country where freedom of speech and money are constitutionally equated (or at least protected by Supreme Court decisions thus far), the older, Republican men get a disproportionate amount of speech, both in government and in media. I find that, in general, people (especially representatives in Congress) believe that more people agree with them than is generally the case; especially those with a louder voice. I see this with both sides of the political aisle though. Most senators think that they're speaking for a majority of the American people... although it is really just their job to speak for the majority in their state. I find it frustrating, especially as a political independent.
When we look at things from a more objective angle and do not interject our sets of ideas and beliefs about a worldview, I find that climate change is real. And if it isn't, and we are able to lower our impacts on the planet for what is, in the scheme of things, not a lot of money there's really no harm being done. Green technologies and retrofits provide local, family-wage jobs. That's something we need right now in this country of 10%+ unemployment and an over 17%+ underemployment.
In closing, check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ He uses logic to show why, even if we're wrong about climate change, we should probably act anyway. For me, it is less about being wrong or right and more about doing something positive and ethical. Renewable energy jobs don't create black lung like coal mining does. And they pay a lot more. And there's a growing market for these technologies whether we are right or wrong about it. If you look objectively at what 'is', the EE/DR/RE markets are growing and fossil fuel markets are plateauing or shrinking. And young people are much more eager to get into these popular 'green' fields than the perceived polluting fields.
In essence, it doesn't matter what we think. It just matters what is going on out there. Resistance, as they say, is futile. The Zeitgeist is what it is... even if we're wrong about it.