Saturday, November 28, 2009

Media should have jumped on "consensus" earlier

The Wall Street Journal wrote the following fine editorial making fun of the "consensus" scientists trying to downplay the recent release of incriminating emails between pro-warming scientists around the world, suggesting a conspiracy to hide information and intimidate "skeptics" of the warming pathology. I wrote the following letter in response, blasting the WSJ a bit for not taking the lead before the emails were made public.


It was good to see the Journal’s glib rebuke of the global-warming “consensus” scientists’ meek attempts to downplay the recent publication of scandalous emails, and it’s been good to finally hear major periodicals finally give airplay to the fact that a “consensus” may have been rigged.

But this is all too little (and hopefully not too late). There has been entirely too little airing of the so-called “skeptics” and their hundreds of peer-reviewed articles over the last decade that have refuted alleged anthropocentric warming of the Earth. There have been few articles revealing the hoax in inconvenient, methodical detail, as has been done by the Australian scientist Ian Plimer and scores of other reputable scientists who’ve exposed the following:

Water vapor causes 95% of Earth’s warming, and the vapor is caused by the sun’s rays, and there is a direct correlation between solar cycles and Earth warming. CO2 itself is a trace gas in the Earth’s atmosphere, making up a very tiny 0.038% of the atmosphere (with slight seasonal variations), and the human-emission portion of that 0.038 is small. CO2 is virtually negligible as a warming gas. Contrary to the bucolics of Al Gore, one inconvenient fact that has been given airtime is that CO2 increases after Earth warms, not before, as he devoutly professed for years, as well as in his infamous video while speaking stentorian-style upon his embattled forklift. There are dozens of other natural causes of warming, including Earth wobble, galactic position of solar system, methane levels and much more.

It has been clear for some time that CO2, therefore, has been a red herring – a political red herring – and that scientists are not immune to politics and government incentivizing. This late revelation by some savvy hackers should be a lesson to the Fourth Estate to keep an objective eye, go boldly where no one has gone before and put an end to Leftist (or Rightist) schemes before they get a chance to embroil and bribe suspect scientists with similar ulterior motives.

No comments: