The worms are out of the can. Looks like the global warming scam is coming to an end. Australia was going to be the first country that invoked a carbon-cap bill as a brave pioneer for the climate summit in Copenhagen next week, but as it turns out, defeated the bil
l instead. This topic achieved Drudgereport's top billing, with headlines like UK's Telegraph, "It's all unravelling now
". Michelle Malkin had a nice blog
of links, so I will spare you all the news reports.
However there's a really nice PDF
from Lord Monckton that you should read on the seismic scientific significance of the leaked emails. The point being that scientists believe a colleague's data because of his PhD bona fides
, but if you ever catch him lying to you, nothing he says is now of any importance, and you may even retroactively "retract" his papers from your journal. Scientists employ a "one strike and you're out" rule for integrity. And the chain of emails has now undermined the integrity of not just East Anglia's gobal temperature data, but Jim Hansen's GISS data, and the NOAA data. The only ones left are two satellite data sets, including that of our own John Christy at MSFC/UAH. With only these two data sets, the entire global warming picture has changed to one of cooling
. Wow. How the mighty have fallen.
But I want to talk about something else that I alluded to in this blog. Why did Jim Hansen at NASA collude with Phil Jones in the UK? Why did Michael Mann or Susan Solomon go along? Why did the New Zealand weather office mangle their temperature data? What kind of virus was spreading throughout the climatology world that would cause all these scientists to sacrifice their integrity for the cause?
What did I predict
about the end of global warming back in Sep 2007?
"Such will be the end of all "global warming" hysteria, not with a bang,
but a whimper, not with noble speeches of contrition, but with rambling
harangues full of dark conspiracies. Likewise the noble storming of the
Bastille ended with the chaos of The Terror. When the scientific
establishment has cashed in its objectivity for the easy money of the
global warming research, there will be no stopping the bandwagon
without a train wreck, without the loss of public support, without
damaged reputations. I predict Hansen will not last two more years with
Some have pointed at greed, with Phil Jones netting $20 million in government grants. But I doubt if Susan Solomon or our NZ climate office got even a tenth as much. And given the cost to run a center, $2 million could disappear in salaries in a big hurry. All these people are essentially government bureaucrats, and their salaries, while generally over $100,000 including perks, are no where close to the $20 million they scammed from the government. Nor are they even close to the millions Al Gore scammed in his carbon credit business or for speaking fees and shakedown from energy company magnates. I mean Al really could be accused of greed, but scientists? It just doesn't compute. Given the scientific punishment for lying, why would you risk it?
And this is where I bring up the subject of religion. As I've said on a Sep 15 blog
"global warming is a scientific theory that has taken
on moral aspects. Read that interview with the Greenpeace president,
watch Gore's movie, the truth is less important than the moral
imperative of global warming. This is what happens when science drifts
toward transcendence, it becomes dogmatic."
Or in July I had blogged
how dogma affects the scientific enterprise:
"Feedback is why we polarize into opposing camps. Feedback is why we
can't be objective. Feedback is why global warming is such a big topic
in a frigid year. Feedback is why Science is doomed. Feedback is why
the human race is damned. For there are many ancient theological terms
for feedback--rebellion, sin, pride, conceit--and it was this feedback
in that garden so long ago, that introduced the human race to this
strange condition called original sin. What starts out as incompetence
rapidly turns into malice. And so malice propagates from heaven to
earth and from past to future. Perhaps, in some theological sense,
eternity will have no incompetence, only malice."
Whence came this desire to turn global warming into a malicious religion? I blogged
on this in Sep 2008.
First, atheism may have been a young man's comfort, but if you look at Socrates, the book of Job, and
various documents from Sumeria, atheism was always viewed as a coward's religion, a scoundrel's refuge.
Why? Because it's single and most important characteristic was to deny morality. (See also "Brother's Karamazov").
Second, a point which follows directly, any society which engages in immorality loses the ability to function.
Morals are not between a man and his God alone, but are the glue that keeps society from fragmenting,
and the force that defends it from enemies. Looked at through history, atheism is the swan song of a dying
culture, be it Rome, Babylon, Assyria, or Egypt. Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, so there are no
testimonies from dead atheists.
Third, because atheism is so corrosive to morals, it creates a vacuum that something must fill.
You are already finding many new religions
striving to fill that vacuum, from global warming to feminism to gay pride to Internet porn.
Thus atheism is uninheritable, and will always
remain a young man's comfort and an old man's shame. Why?
Because he has no children to carry the flame."
So we see the transition, from Christianity to Enlightenment to Atheism
to PoMo polytheism to malicious anti-science power-plays. Just as
Christianity was the birth
of Science, so anti-trinitarian polytheism is the death
[Daniel Henninger at WSJ agrees
. BBC says it isn't death, it's evolution
Behold, the twilight of the gods.