From today's Trib, there's yet another skewed editorial about climate change. Tucked in at the end, there's this:
But this latest push to save the planet -- and thoroughly fleece the U.S. -- is premised on climate "conclusions" that are challenged by dissenting scientists and hamstrung by allegations of improprieties. To wit, leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia's climate researchers reveal "conspiracy, exaggerated warming data (and) possibly illegal destruction and manipulation of data," writes Heritage Foundation analyst Nick Loris.I'm not sure the braintrust is completely correct in using the present tense in quoting Loris as it comes from an article published more than a year ago on October 26, 2010.
This is what Loris wrote then:
Despite vigorous dissention among the scientific community concerning the effects of anthropogenic warming, the climatologists who believe the warming to be a serious problem controlled the message for years. Simply put, they convinced the general public that global warming posed an imminent threat and drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions were necessary to prevent a catastrophe. Recent flaws discovered in the scientific assessment of climate change have shown that the scientific consensus is not as settled as the public had been led to believe. Leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit in the U.K. revealed conspiracy, exaggerated warming data, possibly illegal destruction and manipulation of data, and attempts to freeze out dissenting scientists from publishing their work in reputable journals. Furthermore, gaffes exposed in the IPCC report have only increased skepticism among businesses and the public, and raised serious questions about sacrificing economic activity to reduce CO2 emissions.Have not yet I mentioned how despite the millions of dollars of Scaife money that's supported the Heritage Foundation over the years, there's no mention of that support by Scaife's braintrust when it so loyally uses a year old quote from one of its analysts? What an oversight on my part! Apologies all around.
Unfortunately for Loris' credibility, there've been many exonerations the science. Some before like this one from the EPA written before Loris wrote his blog post:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today denied 10 petitions challenging its 2009 determination that climate change is real, is occurring due to emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities, and threatens human health and the environment.And here's the first petition:
Claim: Petitioners say that emails disclosed from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate global temperature data.And some after, like this one from The Hill:
Response: EPA reviewed every e-mail and found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets. Four other independent reviews came to similar conclusions.
A Commerce Department inspector general investigation into the “Climategate” controversy finds that government scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration did not manipulate climate change data.And so on...
It’s the latest investigation to clear scientists of manipulating climate data after thousands of e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit were leaked in 2009.
“Climategate” has become something of a rallying call for climate skeptics, who have pointed to the e-mails to suggest there is a conspiracy among the world’s scientists. But a slew of investigations into the e-mails have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing.
“In our review of the CRU emails, we did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data comprising the [Global Historical Climatology Network] dataset or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures,” said the report, which was authored by Commerce Department Inspector General Todd Zinser at the request of Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.).
Repeat after me. Climate change is real. Even The Pentagon says so:
The changing global climate will pose profound strategic challenges to the United States in coming decades, raising the prospect of military intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass migration and pandemics, military and intelligence analysts say.Did I mention where Loris worked before working for the Scaife-funded Heritage Foundation? I didn't? Well here's his bio from Heritage:
Such climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions, say the analysts, experts at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies who for the first time are taking a serious look at the national security implications of climate change.
Before joining Heritage in June 2007, Loris was an associate at the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, immersing himself for a year in a market-based management program. His first media experience was as an editorial intern for Townhall.com.So I don't think we can expect any sort of fair and balanced look at climate science. Or from the anti-science braintrust on Richard Mellon Scaife's payroll.