9 Things You Need To Know About The Climate Change Hoax
With Hurricane Matthew wreaking havoc, the Left is predictably seizing the storm as a means of promoting their radical global warming agenda. Climate change has not been a major theme this election cycle, but Hillary Clinton is now trying to turn it into one, with the help of global warming guru Al Gore. Unfortunately for the climate change alarmists, despite all the celebrity endorsements and high-minded rhetoric, the facts keep getting in the way. Here are nine things you need to know about the climate change hoax.
*1. The Climategate scandal proved that key data involving man-made climate change was manipulated. *In 2009, the public discovered emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit exposing how scientists who have been enormously influential in promoting the concept of man-made climate change actually attempted to cook the books <www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html> to obtain results that served their narrative that the planet was heating at a dangerous trend due to higher levels of carbon dioxide.
One of these scientists included Dr. James Hansen <www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/06/29/the-catastrophist>, a former NASA climatologist who is known by some as the “father” or “grandfather” of the climate change myth, as it was his “Model Zero” that first introduced the concept of global warming. Hansen, Philip Jones, Michael Mann, et al. were all involved in trying “to lower past temperatures and to ‘adjust’ recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming,” according to the leaked emails. The emails also revealed how this cabal of scientists would discuss various ways to stonewall the public from seeing the “background data on which their findings and temperature records were based,” even going as far as deleting significant amounts of data. They would engage in efforts to smear “any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics’ work.”
*2. The Climategate scandal was given new life in 2011, with the release of new emails. *The new round of leaked emails at the time provided more teeth to the revelations of 2009. Here are a couple of egregious emails from Jones found, via /Forbes/ <www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/#4a4609a9988d>:
“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,” writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.
“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”
An email written by Mann showed that he tried to get “an investigative journalist to investigate and expose” a climate skeptic scientist named Steven McIntyre.
*3. NASA may have also been involved in manipulating data to serve the narrative of man-made climate change. */The Washington Times /reported <www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/3/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/> in 2009: “Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler.”
Since this occurred at around the same time as the Climategate scandal, Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed a lawsuit to get NASA to release their relevant data sets on this issue and was able to expose emails from NASA that revealed a disturbing fact: the agency admitted “that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit,” reported Fox News <www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climategate-data.html> in 2010 – meaning NASA climate change data sets were less accurate than the organization embattled with manipulating data sets.
A 2015 /Washington Times/ editorial <www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/16/editorial-climate-scientists-manipulate-data-to-su/> also highlighted another example of NASA cooking the books:
Paul Homewood, a skeptical researcher, found that in Paraguay, temperature readings for the 20th century at all nine weather stations supervised by NASA had been “adjusted” to transform a cooling trend into a warming trend. His analysis of readings in the Arctic found that rapid warming between 1920 and 1950 — before human activity could have increased the production of greenhouse gases — were adjusted downward so that the 1980s and ‘90s temperatures would stand out as warmer.
*4. NASA also declared 2014 to be the hottest year on record – despite the fact that they were only 38 percent sure about it. *The latter fact was left out of their press release <townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/01/20/nasa-were-about-38-percent-sure-that-2014-was-the-warmest-year-on-record-n1945399> at the time, as well as the fact that 2014 was supposedly hotter than the previous hottest year, 2010, by 0.02C – well within the margin of error of 0.1C that scientists tend to adhere by. The /Washington Post/ <www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/01/23/sorry-skeptics-nasa-and-noaa-were-right-about-the-2014-temperature-record/?utm_term=.5ef7a794422b> attempted to spin in favor of NASA by arguing that NASA simply said that 2014 was the /most likely /hottest year on record – but their press release unequivocally stated that “2014 was the warmest year on record” and leaving out the aforementioned key facts makes such a declaration seem misleading, as it’s clearly not a guarantee that 2014 was even likely the hottest year on record.
*5. There is no evidence that the Earth has been warming in recent years. *As /The Daily Caller <dailycaller.com/2016/09/22/the-fingerprint-of-global-warming-doesnt-exist-in-the-real-world-study-finds/> /highlights, a recent peer-reviewed study concluded that when accounting for El Ninos and La Ninas – which are the “the fluctuations in temperature between the ocean and atmosphere in the east-central Equatorial Pacific” that “occur on average every two to seven years,” according to NOAA <oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ninonina.html> – there has been a flat-line temperature trend since 1997. In fact, the study found that the El Ninos and La Ninas disproved the existence of the Tropical Hot Spot, which the Environmental Protection Agency claimed as evidence of carbon dioxide supposedly warming the atmosphere.
*6. The left likes to claim that 97 percent of scientists support the concept of man-made climate change. It’s likely closer to 43 percent. *The 97 percent myth stems from a variety of flawed studies, as the /Daily Wire/ explained here <www.dailywire.com/news/9119/7-things-you-need-know-about-global-warming-aaron-bandler>. On the other hand, the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency <www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf> conducted a survey in 2015 that found that only 43 percent of scientists believe in man-made climate change, which is far from a consensus.
*7. The amount of Arctic sea ice has become quite high. *Data from the Danish Meteorological Institute shows that the “average [ice] extent over the month [of September] is one of the highest in the last decade,” according to Paul Homewood <notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/10/04/arctic-ice-extent-in-september/>. This runs directly counter to the predictions of the climate change models.
*8. Money from the federal government and leftist organizations fuel a lot of misinformation from man-made global warming alarmists. * Climate change alarmism is an extremely lucrative industry.**All in all, there have been over $32.5 billion of federal government grants <www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/07/26/we-get-what-we-pay-for-with-disastrous-climate-science/#3af02d321079> that have funded climate change research from 1989-2009, far more than any research funded by the oil industry.**/National Review /reports:
Last summer, a minority staff report from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works gave details on a “Billionaire’s Club” — a shadowy network of charitable foundations that distribute billions to advance climate alarmism. Shadowy nonprofits such as the Energy Foundation and Tides Foundation distributed billions to far-left green groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, which in turn send staff to the EPA who then direct federal grants back to the same green groups. It is incestuous. It is opaque. Major media ignored the report.
Mann, one of the scientists mentioned earlier for his role in the Climategate scandal, received nearly $6 million in grants from the federal government. The sources of funding for scientists like Hansen are unknown, the federal government has been resisting Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to reveal them.
*9. It is patently absurd to link Hurricane Matthew to climate change. *Not just because of the aforementioned reasons, but because as Marco Morano <www.climatedepot.com/2016/10/06/linking-hurricane-matthew-to-climate-change-is-overblown-hype/> points out at Climate Depot, “The data show for the last 10 years we have had an unusual drought of landfalling major hurricanes (Category 3 and higher) on the continental U.S.”
“That’s right, no major hurricanes have made landfall for over a decade,” Morano continued. “This is the longest such drought on record.”
9 Things You Need To Know About The Climate Change Hoax