Obama’s Energy and Climate Change Czar Carol Browner is unswayed by the revelations in the Hadley CRU hacked emails, saying
“I’m sticking with the 2,500 scientists. These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real,” said Ms. Browner, who President Obama has tapped as his chief of policy on global warming. …
Ms. Browner initially shrugged when asked about the e-mails, saying she didn’t have a reaction. But when a reporter followed up, she said she will stick with the consensus of the 2,500 climate scientists on the International Panel on Climate Change who concluded global warming is happening and is most likely being pushed by human actions.
On the eve of President Obama’s trip to the U.N. Climate Change conference in Copenhagen, please indulge a few rhetorical questions.
- Those 2,500 scientists? They work for the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Of course they believe in Climate Change; it says “Climate Change” on their paychecks! The global warming opinions of organizations like the American Petroleum Institute have always been treated with skepticism; why should we not consider the source when it comes to the IPCC’s studies?
- If money corrupts and renders ones scientific opinions tainted, what’s with Nobel Peace Laureate Al Gore? As a partner in investment bank Kleiner Perkins, he’s positioned to score big from government’s “investment” in green energy.
- The email controversy directly calls into question the integrity of the #1 repository of temperature trend data. Hadley puts ideology above their commitment to scientific truth, and that, to me, is the key revelation of the emails. If they had found that the data no longer supports global warming, would they have reported it nonetheless? The tone of the emails suggests the answer is “no”.
- Aside from the institutional bias (or perhaps because of it), Hadley’s data seems a mess. Before the hacked emails, we discovered that decades of raw data had been erased, making it impossible for independent researchers to audit Hadley’s statistical methods. Email content calls into question the way relatively sparse recent data were grafted onto historical trends. Without the “hockey stick”, which has become a key underpinning of global warming alarmism, what’ve you got?
- Can we drop the “denier” bit now? Aside from subliminally conjuring up the Holocaust to help your cause, recent events suggest climate change skepticism is healthy and justified.
- For the last decade or so, we’ve been operating under “The Science is settled. We don’t have time. WE MUST ACT NOW!” Well, last time I checked, global temps have been falling. Even if you’re right, the temperature trend has bought us some time. Maybe it’s time to start the analysis afresh, only this time with a blank slate, and without a stacked deck.