The scandal grows: The same British scientist alleged to have suppressed evidence contrary to the theocracy of global warming now is being accused of fudging data from Chinese climate stations. The Guardian of London says Phil Jones "sought to hide problems in key temperature data on which some of his work was based." The newspaper says some of the data can't even be produced. How many more shoes will drop before the world wakes up to the global warming fraud?But, as I wrote a few days ago, if it's such a hoax then why is the Pentagon releasing reports that include things like this:
A movement dies: Writing in The American Interest, Walter Russell Mead pronounces the "global warming movement as we have known it is dead." The cause of death? "Bad science and bad politics," says Mr. Mead. "(I)t turns out that the most prestigious agencies in the global warming movement were breaking laws, hiding data and making inflated, bogus claims resting on, in some cases, no scientific basis at all." So, shouldn't a lot of people be prosecuted?
Climate change will affect DoD in two broad ways. First, climate change will shape the operating environment, roles, and missions that we undertake. The U.S. Global Change Research Program, composed of 13 federal agencies, reported in 2009 that climate-related changes are already being observed in every region of the world, including the United States and its coastal waters. Among these physical changes are increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the oceans and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows.
Note that they used the word "will" there. Not "may" or "possibly if the science turns out to be true" but "will." Climage change will effect the Department of Defense. That's what the Pentagon wrote.
But, as always when dealing with the Trib editorial board (or any other folks infected with teh crazie) when you look at the details you find how much they are spinning.
Let's take a look at that Guardian article. Here it is. Now if you were to actually take a look at the article (and not just skim it for the words you want to read - like the braintrust obviously did) you 'll see that the article is about the data supporting a paper from 1990. Oh, and the Guardian says, about that paper:
Why, yes. Yes, they were.
The revelations on the inadequacies of the 1990 paper do not undermine the case that humans are causing climate change, and other studies have produced similar findings.But, wasn't the brain trust using the revelations for exactly that?
Why, yes. Yes, they were.
They're assuming no one will check their "work" and see how badly they're spinning.
Then there's the Walter Russell Mead piece. Again if you read it c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y you'll see he's talking about the "movement" and not the "phenomenon" of climate science. He even says so:
The death of global warming (the movement, not the phenomenon) has some important political and cultural consequences in the United StatesAnd what does he think of the evidence?
I am glad you asked. While he is not a supporter of "the movement" he does write:
The global warmists were trapped into the necessity of hyping the threat by their realization that the actual evidence they had — which, let me emphasize, all hype aside, is serious, troubling and establishes in my mind the need for intensive additional research and investigation, as well as some prudential steps that would reduce CO2 emissions by enhancing fuel use efficiency and promoting alternative energy sources — was not sufficient to get the world’s governments to do what they thought needed to be done. [emphasis added]Wait, wait. There's "actual evidence" for global warming? Mead just said so. AYE-und (that's how the lovely wife says "and" when she's emphasizing a point) it's "serious" and "troubling"?? Mead just wrote that also.
And yet Richard Mellon Scaife's braintrust...well you know the drill. Spin, distort, omit, lie, whatever it's called. When it comes to Climate Science, it's what they do on the Trib editorial board.