Do you know what today is? It’s Time Travel Friday where we will take a look back at happenings during a previous time. Going back 10 years, what was happening in December 2009? Hussein Soetoro assumed office in January and the federal government’s loan program to “green energy” companies like Solyndra was in full swing. But, the grass was not greener on the other side of the fence. The Climategate scandal was exposed. Ironically, the lamestream entertainment government-controlled enemedia reported on the scandal; but, took little interest and glossed over the significance of the scandal. Looking at the reporting today, one would never know these entities ever heard or knew about Climategate.
In Chapter 10 of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change by Marc Morano, the UN IPCC is exposed as committing science fraud and using subterfuge and intimidation to quash the truth. The chapter is titled “Climategate: The UN IPCC Exposed” and has provided information from various sources to prove the ruse of man-made climate change. As with all things ideological containing an agenda, those who support the hoax of man-made climate change conveniently dismiss actual science in favor of UN politicism and agenda while hollering “science deniers” at the top of their lungs to individuals who reviewed the actual science.
Reflecting on that time, Morano covered the key points of Climategate that exposed the ruse perpetrated by the UN IPCC using data manipulation, destruction of data, blacklisting, as well as other dishonest science processes to promote an agenda.
Climate Depot published from Chapter 10:
“I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple.” That’s Princeton physicist Robert Austin’s take on the scandal that exposed the very unscientific conduct of UN IPCC scientists.
But what the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Institute revealed was more than just a shocking case of dishonesty in science. It was the fraudulence of the entire man-made climate change narrative. The Climategate emails showed that UN IPCC scientists were holding together the global warming narrative and the supposed scientific “consensus” that supported it by subterfuge and intimidation. The Climategate scandal opened a lot of eyes to the fact that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was more political than scientific.
The Climategate scandal pulled back the curtain on the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists, who were caught artificially propping up the climate change narrative via a partisan campaign to boost only the science and scientists that support their cause and exclude science and scientists that don’t fit. Data manipulation, manipulation of the peer-review process, blacklisting, data destruction, and willful violation of Freedom of Information Act requests were some of the key revelations in the Climategate emails.
CBS News reported on the Climategate scandal in December of 2009:
“Those files show that prominent scientists were so wedded to theories of man-made global warming that they ridiculed dissenters who asked for copies of their data, plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing, and discussed how to conceal apparently buggy computer code from being disclosed under the Freedom of Information law.”
When NBC News reported on “A scandal called ‘Climategate’” in 2009, it was introduced as “a scandal involving some stolen emails.” NBC noted that “the language in the emails suggest these scientists manipulated their findings.”
The thousands of emails, either hacked or more likely leaked from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, revealed the behind the-scenes collusion of the climate change leadership. The leading UN IPCC scientists were caught red-handed artificially manufacturing the “scientific consensus” for the global warming narrative. Their own words betrayed that they were acting like political partisans, not scientists—crafting a predetermined message rather than following the evidence. Climategate exposed the work product of the IPCC as the best science that politics and activism could manufacture. Emails between Climategate scientists showed a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.
Rex Murphy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation summed up Climategate saying, “[it] pulls back the curtain on a scene of pettiness, turf protection, manipulation, defiance of freedom of information, lost or destroyed data and attempts to blacklist critics or skeptics of the global warming cause.”
The Atlantic’s Clive Crook wrote, “The Penn State inquiry exonerating Michael Mann—the paleoclimatologist who came up with ‘the hockey stick’—would be difficult to parody. Three of four allegations are dismissed out of hand at the outset: the inquiry announces that, for ‘lack of credible evidence’, it will not even investigate them…. You think I exaggerate?…In short, the case for the prosecution is never heard. Mann is asked if the allegations (well, one of them) are true, and says no.”
In 2011, a second round of emails were released in relation to the Climategate scandal of 2009, which Forbes dubbed “Climategate 2.0”.
“‘I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,’ writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email. ‘Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get—and has to be well hidden,’ Jones writes in another email. ‘I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data…. ’” [Emphasis Mine.]
Chris Horner, author of the 2007 Politically Incorrect Guide® to Global Warming, reported on the efforts to delete correspondence by Climategate scientists. “Phil Jones in the United Kingdom asked Mann, now at Penn State, by email to delete records being sought under the UK’s Freedom of Information Act, and to get a colleague to do so as well,” Horner explained in 2011.
Jones had emailed, Mike:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN IPCC 4th Assessment]? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment—minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise.
“‘Gene’ is Eugene Wahl, who now works for the federal government,” explained Horner. Mann’s terse reply included in pertinent part: “I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP.”
According to Wahl, Mann did contact him. “For the record, while I received the email from CRU [Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit] as forwarded by Dr. Mann, the forwarded message came without any additional comment from Dr. Mann; there was no request from him to delete emails,” Wahl explained in 2011.
The Telegraph reported that CRU director Jones was “accused of making error of judgment by colleague” Mann for asking their colleagues to “delete sensitive emails to evade Freedom of Information requests.” Mann tried to distance himself from Jones, “I can’t justify the action, I can only speculate that he was feeling so under attack that he made some poor decisions frankly and I think that’s clear.” Jones retired in 2016.
Notice how the US Department of Energy was in on the scandal to keep hidden factual station data. Being an unconstitutional entity, the DOE should be eliminated. Hussein Soetoro claimed his administration was scandal free. Most citizens knew better, especially with Climategate and the amount of money being poured into companies like Solyndra.
A Washington Post editorial in November of 2009 summed up the scandal but described the emails as “stolen”. The emails were not stolen, but what can one expect from a liberal rag shilling for its government master.
Mann and Jones conspired to punish the legitimate peer-review journal, Climate Research, because the journal was not loyal to the climate change narrative. Both sought to encourage colleagues in the climate research community to “no longer submit to, or cite papers in, the journal”.
Climate blogger Tom Nelson dug through and collected a slew of the Climategate emails on his website:
- Email 1819, Nov 2003, warmist Tom Wigley to Mann et al on possible responses to McIntyre and McKitrick’s request for data: “The second is to tell them to go to hell”
- Email 4868, Sept ’05: IPCC reviewer McIntyre asks to see the data underlying a paper; warmists complain this is a “major abuse of his position”
- Email 1897, Dec 2008: After Phil Jones admits deleting material, UEA’s FOI officer David Palmer writes: “Phil, you must be very careful about deleting material, more particularly when you delete it”
- 2000: Warmist Phil Jones goes to “solar variability and climate” conference in Tenerife; finds that “Many in the solar terrestrial physics community seem totally convinced that solar output changes can explain most of the observed changes we are seeing”; laments that THEY are “so set in their ways”
- Email 4657, Oct 2000, It’s a small world after all: Editor of Journal of Climate, Michael Mann, gets Phil Jones to review a paper by Tom Wigley and Ben Santer
- 2004 email: Phil Jones on why he thought the last 20 years was warmer than the Medieval Warm Period: “This is all gut feeling, no science”; warmist Tom Wigley also calls the hockey stick “a very sloppy piece of work”
Climategate exposed the manufactured consensus and gave the lie to the endlessly repeated mantra that all scientists agree on anthropogenic global warming.
Not all scientists agreed despite the touted 97% consensus of scientists that man caused climate change. The percentage was far less because those engaged in lying to promote a global agenda and global government were stifling factual data and scientific conclusions by those using the Scientific Method. The significant result of Climategate was UN scientists turning against other UN scientists as well as on the entire UN IPCC process.
Scientists Eduardo Zorita and Richard Tol have publicly spoken against the UN IPCC exposing how scientists who disputed the narrative with factual, honest scientific data were bullied and “subtly blackmailed”.
Yet, here we are ten years later and the false narrative and hoax continues. What’s even more incredible is the willfully ignorant and chronically stupid are buying nothing more than a rhetoric similar to ocean front property in Arizona. As asked before, does anyone truly believe that money can correct climate change, because that’s all the solution these charlatans have? Why are people still buying the hogwash? And, why does anyone believe than man can control what is in God’s hands to control?
It’s time to remind the citizens of the united States and the citizens of other world nations that climate change is a false narrative invented by those who seek to steal money from wealthy nations, give it to the poorer nations, and instill global government to the detriment of the freedom of everyone.
The next article with cover how the global warming/climate change narrative undermined genuine scientific research.
Become an insider!
Sign up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media.