Below, I have a posting that links to a Scientific American piece that calls the debate between the pro- and anti-GW forces ‘war.’ I agree. One side is fighting with science and the other is faking documents, fighting freedom of information act requests tooth and nail in court (wasting taxpayer funds on documents clearly in the public domain), the EPA’s “scrubbing” its database of the hundreds of thousands of dollars it gave to Fakegate’s protagonist (Peter Gleick), Climategates 1 and 2, etc., etc. The question some of my correspondents are asking is “why?”
Here is my theory as to why so much unscientific and unethical behavior is now occurring so frequently:
The Wall Street Journal just ran a second piece written by scientists like me that are skeptical of the Gore/IPCC theory of catastrophic global warming. It is the same piece I linked to yesterday.
The piece includes this graph that shows the IPCC’s various forecasts (dotted lines) compared to the red line. Notice anything? All of the forecasts are too warm! The 1995 forecast isn’t too bad but if you take out the 1998 peak, it would be almost entirely too warm, also. The unmistakeable conclusion is that the models overweight the effects of CO2…the very foundation of the catastrophic global warming hypothesis.
A pro-global warming defense of the forecasts presented in the above graph is here. In it, the author states that it takes 30 years to falsify the models. This is moving their own goal posts. They used to say seventeen years (one example here, I could link to many more).
Here are world temperatures over the last 15 years:
See any net warming? Since temperatures are currently trending down, it would take something extremely surprising for the IPCC/Gore forecast to not be completely falsified in another two years. In fact, by any measure, the most famous of the forecasts, 1990, is already falsified.
This is why you are seeing so much nonsense from the pro-global warming forces. They realize that, one day soon, the media and politicians are finally going to realize that there is at least no near-term (10-30 years) global warming crisis. Given the current federal budgetary constraints, the biggest — by far — gravy train in the history of atmospheric science may start drying up. So, desperate times call for desperate measures and you get Climategate 2 two months ago and Fakegate and its many defenders this past week.
Thursday, both Republicans and Democrats asked the EPA to stop regulating CO2. Here is the list of Democrats (from ThinkProgress/Green):
There is little question that Democrats would not have signed this letter as little as two years go. It is dawning on more and more people that they have been “had.” There is no immediate global warming crisis.
I bring up the politics of this because the pro-global warming forces are seeing this major shift, too. Thus, the increasingly desperate tactics. I expect more between now and the election.
UPDATE: 12:11PM via WattsUpWithThat, Dr. Judith Curry (a member of the IPCC and genuine climate scientist) writes about what I’m calling “Fakegate,”
When ‘Heartlandgate’ first broke, I saw no parallels with Climategate. Now, with the involvement of Gleick, there most certainly are parallels. There is the common theme of climate scientists compromising personal and professional ethics, integrity, and responsibility, all in the interests of a ’cause’.