We Don't Need No Stinkin' Evidence!
Who can forget the classic confrontation between Humphrey Bogart and Alfonso Bedoya in Treasure of the Sierra Madre? It’s now being reprised in living color, featuring banditos from East Anglia, Penn State, Washington, and the UN.
“We’re Federales,” they tell us. “You know, climate police. Evidence? We ain’t got no evidence. We don’t need no evidence. We don’t have to show you any stinkin’ evidence.
“Hold your tongue, hombre. We ain’t trying to do you any harm. Why don’t you try to be a little more polite? Why don’t you just throw us a little more money, and stop questioning our integrity and science?”
However, instead of solid, reproducible scientific evidence, the bandito scientists offered hypotheses, speculation, assumptions, assertions, “hockey stick” graphs, computer models, and worst-case scenarios – purporting to demonstrate that CO2 causes planetary warming… and the warming will be cataclysmic.
Their reports were “peer-reviewed” by networks of fellow alarmists who tied every temperature, weather, and wildlife anomaly to global warming and carbon dioxide. When challenged, they claimed the “science is settled” and stonewalled requests from experts who did not accept dire predictions of planetary mayhem – and wanted to examine the raw temperature data, computer codes, and analyses.
Suddenly, however, the world got a glimpse into the mindset and machinations of these tax-funded catastrophists. Thousands of emails revealed systematic, concerted collusion to conceal and delete data, manipulate temperature trends that contradicted predictions of dangerous warming, stifle debate, and pressure scientific journals to publish only alarmist studies… and exclude dissenting analyses.
fraudulent science is the basis for congressional cap-tax-and-trade
legislation, EPA’s pronouncement that CO2 “endangers” human health
and welfare, and the new global governance treaty being debated in
The money would come from fines for noncompliance with CO2 emission rules, a global “carbon tax” on energy use, a new levy on air travel, and “mandatory contributions” as high as 1% of GDP, paid by (formerly) rich developed countries, as new foreign aid for corrupt officials in poor nations.
One would think such actions would be based on rock-solid science. One would be wrong. It’s time to ask the critical question – which the White House, UN, EPA, and “mainstream” media (especially the Associated Press, New York Times, ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN) have refused to consider:
What evidence backs up the terrifying disaster claims, the calls for drastic “solutions” that won’t work, to a crisis that extensive evidence strongly suggests is speculative or even illusory?
Reliable satellite temperature measurements span most of the planet. However, they only cover the last 30 years – and for the past 15 years show stable and then declining temperatures, despite steadily rising CO2 levels. So climate crisis scientists have focused their “research” on ground temperatures.
nearly half of the world’s remaining ground-based gauges are in the
The incomplete, averaged, and manipulated ground temperature data were then fed into computer models that reflect our still limited understanding of climate causes and dynamics; assume CO2 is the primary driver in climate change; and poorly analyze the vast, complex, chaotic planetary climate system. The models have never been able to forecast climate accurately, even one year in advance, much less 50 or 100. They can’t reproduce prior years’ climates. They failed to predict the stable and declining temperatures of the past 15 years.
But even that didn’t conjure up the desired “manmade climate crisis.” As a CRU programmer put it, the only way the models can produce “the proper result” is when programmers apply a “very artificial correction,” use “low pass filtering at century and longer time scales,” and “include a load of garbage.”
1999, CRU director Phil Jones reported that he’d “just used [Penn State
climatologist Michael Mann’s] trick … to hide the decline” in average global
temperatures. But in October 2009,
“peer-reviewed” scientific journals somehow produce “consensus” among
“mainstream” scientists, offer “unequivocal” evidence of disastrous manmade global
warming – and give the IPCC, White House, EPA, and Congress the “proof” they
need to justify treaties, laws, and regulations that will send energy costs
skyrocketing. Compliant media outlets whitewash the email and science scandal,
and trumpet the latest alarmist claims. And voila, like Freddy Krueger in
Evidence tampering like this would get legal cases thrown out of court – and land the manipulators in jail. To use it in advancing economy-wrecking energy policies is criminal.
Just one week ago, President Obama promised jobs summit attendees, “We will do everything we can to bring down the unemployment rate.”
Within hours, he stepped up his arm-twisting for cap-tax-and-trade in the Senate, announced that he was going to Copenhagen to lobby for a new climate treaty, endorsed still more restrictions on producing America’s vital, abundant hydrocarbon resources, and gave EPA the go-ahead to blackmail Congress by decreeing that carbon dioxide “endangers” human health and welfare.
These decisions set the stage for job-killing government control of our energy, economy, and lives. If they are implemented, millions of Americans will freeze jobless in the dark.
Paul Driessen is senior policy adviser for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), which sponsors the All Pain No Gain education campaign and petition against job-killing global warming policies, and the ClimateDepot website for the latest news and views on climate change. He is also a senior policy adviser to the Congress of Racial Equality and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power - Black Death.Statement of Policy.
Learn about Mr. Stolyarov's novel, Eden against the Colossus, here.