Global Manipulation: How Some ActivistsFalsify Data On Climate Change For Political Goals

Donate

Global Manipulation: How Some ActivistsFalsify Data On Climate Change For Political Goals

Written Dmitry Drobnitsky; Originally appeared at Life, translated by AlexD exclusively for SouthFront

This week another scandal erupted around the activists against global warning. Climatologist, member of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the USA (NOAA), John Bates told the press that his office falsified data of scientific observations, so the arguments of the environmental-alarmists would sound convincing at the Paris conference on climate, which was held in 2015.

Thus, facts were destroyed indicating that in the period from 1989 to 2013 the average Earth temperature did not change.

This is by far not the first scandal of this type. And, probably, not the last.

Everyone knows that the 44th president of the USA, Barak Obama, received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009. The whole world was talking about this award given in advance with irony and sarcasm and with poorly hidden anger, especially towards the end of the “peacemaker’s” presidency.

International awards are mostly extremely opportunistic. But if you think that awarding the Nobel Prize to Obama is the height of political cynicism, you are mistaken. After all Barak Hussein at the beginning of his first term was more inclined towards “peace throughout the world”, nuclear disarmament, closing the Guantanamo prison and other good things. He simply could not.

Few remember that two years prior, in 2007, the laureate was the person who made a career and considerable fortune in one of the main frauds of our time, the theory of global climate change, or, speaking in everyday language, global warming.

He is Albert Gore, Vice-President in the Bill Clinton administration. He shared the prize with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), created under the auspices of the UNO.

At the beginning of the 1990s another pseudo-ecological bubble just burst, the theory of the formation of anthropogenic ozone holes. It burst in scandal, noise and mass layoffs. At that time Gore was already one of the most famous “environmentalist” and in that capacity he was invited to the Clinton administration as Vice-President.

Bill had his own logic – he, as the representative of the “new Democrats”, was about to radically shift the Democratic Party of the USA to the centre in economic questions. And, in order to placate the American Left, he took as a partner a man of “green” beliefs.

Albert Gore tried to become the president in 2000, but lost to Bush Jr. He did not despair for long and started an active propaganda campaign on “combating global climate change”. His book “Earth in the Balance: Forging a New Common Purpose”, movie “An Inconvenient Truth”, lecture tours and consulting contracts brought him millions … and the Nobel Peace Prize.

As follows from the decision of the Nobel committee, IPCC and Gore received the award “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change”.

That is, they did not stop the war but told people about their responsibility on the imminent death of Earth, which will become inevitable, if only we limited the emissions into the atmosphere the so-called greenhouse gases, chief among which is CO2, and not to cross-over to what is called green energy of wind, solar, tidal, etc.

All this is possible, of course, but only through common efforts. National economies must refocus on serving the common supergoal, and therefore, a supranational structure is needed to save the world.

The fight with climate change, along with free trade and the almost forced resettlement of migrants in the West, appears as one of the cornerstones of globalisation. When Barak Obama defended the Trans-Pacific and Trans-Atlantic trade agreements, he argued the value of NATO and the EU, as well as other supranational institutions, his first argument always being “questions about climate change”: that is, alone they will not be solved.

Anthropogenic global warming is presented to the public as a wholly proven natural-scientific fact. Meanwhile, what science there is, is very little.

To any person with a modicum of knowledge of physics understands that the increase is half of the concentration of the gas in the atmosphere, which at any moment holds less than 0.5%, cannot serve as a reason for the global climate shift. In addition, it is known that the world oceans in today’s climate release into the atmosphere ten times more CO2 than all industry and transport on Earth. Where does the human factor come in?

In the planet’s history, climate changed more than once, and long before the advent of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. In the 19th century a small ice age ended when the temperature (at least in the Northern Hemisphere) was significantly lower than currently. In the 16th-17th centuries, snow in some European cities fell even in summer, in winter all rivers, which today freely flow in January, were covered in thick ice, on which people walked and rode heavily laden sleighs.

Prior to this, in the 10th to 15th centuries, a warm period reigned over Earth. There was also a big ice age, when almost the entire present-day Russia and Europe was bound in year-round ice.

Solar activity influenced climate change and cycles in the world oceans. And this is really the scientific point of view. But a completely different tenet is popularised through IPCC and other institutes, as well through many European and American governments.

Professor Philipp Scott from the London University claims since 2000, “IPCC is not a scientific but a political organisation”. Professor Paul Reiter, a well-known climatologist, seconds his statement, he refused to sign the majority of the UNO reports on global warming: “The IPCC is considered to have two thousand of the best scientists in the world, but if you study their biographies, you will understand that this is nonsense. There are a lot of people who have absolutely nothing to do with science. They are anyone – administrators, lobbyists, politicians, but not scientists”.

So why does the scientific world not refute the obvious lie? It is all a matter of distributing science grants. This is how the previous editor of the magazine New Scientist Nigel Calder explains: “If I want to carry out research, let’s say study squirrels in Canada or in Moscow, what should I do? I would write an application similar to the following: “Squirrels, that do not gather in a pack, and the impact of global warming on this phenomenon”. And I will receive financing. If I forget global warming, I, more than likely, will be refused, and they will save at my expense”.

Scientists, of course, are not happy with these stranglehold policies. Here emerge from time to time inconvenient facts for the “environmentalists”, tied with silencing, distorting, as well as falsifying data.

A month after Albert Gore was awarded the Nobel Prize, a scandal broke that the media called “Climategate”. Unknown hackers broke into the mail server of the New England University Climate Research Group. This group, as many other research centres, were engaged in preparations for the Copenhagen summit on climate change.

From the scientists’ exchanges with the administration it became apparent that from the observation data it is not possible to make unambiguous conclusions. In addition, there exist many factors that contradict the significance of greenhouse gases in climate change and the human factor.

There was an attempt to quash the matter, stating that there many “threads of honest scientific discussions were taken out of context”. In 2011, on the eve of South African climate conference, hackers once again laid out in open access close to five thousand e-mails of the same group. The exposure was even more obvious, however the “scientific community” reacted quite strangely, though, by now, a very familiar fashion to us.

First, the break-in was attributed to Russia hackers. Second, instead of investigating the fraud and punishing the perpetrators of the break-in, angry invectives were addressed to the whistleblowers. So, the liberal publication The Guardian published an article in which the disclosure of the correspondence was called a “clear attempt as undermining public support for measures aimed at combating climate change”.

The latest disclosures, from which we began the talk, differ in that they were released not by an anonymous source, but by a direct participant in the fraud who told first The Daily Mail, and then the National Review and Fox News, that all “links” of the chain are lies in 2015, from the laboratory technicians to world leaders such as Barak Obama and David Cameron, taking part in the deliberate distortion of data.

I am sure that they will try to hush up even this scandal. If they will not be successful in ignoring it, the publication, publishing the revelations, and scientist, providing the materials throwing abusive articles in the liberal press, striving to shift the attention from the fact itself of the fake scientific facts on “those who benefit from it”. And everything will be as before. At least for some time.

The main problem of the theory of anthropogenic climate change consists not even in the fact that it serves globalisation (in the West they are starting slowly to examine this question), but it takes resources, necessary for the implementation of real environmental measures and building reliable climate models.

What is missing is an unbiased analysis of “clean” solar energy, electric and hydrogen engines, including the production and usage of panels and accumulators, as well as industrial production of hydrogen.

All this is considered presently as heresy, about which it is not worth talking about, not to allocate funds towards it.

However, this was under the old order. It is possible that new times are approaching. Donald Trump in his election campaign programme promised that money, allocated by the USA on the maintenance of the IPCC, would be redirected to national environmental programmes and research.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Sam Culpak

    Guys, I don’t mind you putting a spin to fit your own agenda and I really enjoy your site but please stick to the facts.

    Bates told on Feb. 6 that there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious” involved with his colleagues’ study. “It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form,” he said. Rather, Bates claimed Karl and his group hadn’t followed NOAA protocol in “the way data was handled, documented and stored, raising issues of transparency and availability,” the AP reported, adding that Bates thought the study was rushed “to influence the December 2015 climate treaty negotiations in Paris.”

    That is in complete contrast to what you guys and the Republicans are spinning it. ;)

    • Pampalon

      Global warming is a myth, in any way.
      At least anthropogenic global warming is.

      • Sam Culpak

        Not going to discuss it in detail but I wonder where you got your opinion from.
        Please explain though why you say a theory is a myth. Evidence please.
        Otherwise your statement is not a fact but merely an opinion of a single mind without credibility.

  • Balázs Jávorszky

    Dear SF, please don’t sink into this. Science is a serious thing, and there’s scientific consensus regarding climate change, i.e. there’s warming and it is caused by human emissions. Even a cursory look into the above mentioned scandal will tell you that there’s no scandal at all. Science is one thing, the “what to do with it” is another, and there are vast interests in this, mainly coming from oil companies.

    • Pampalon

      Bullcrap, it’s all politics and pseudoscience.
      There is even a climategate (“hide the decline”).
      You can spin YOUR OWN agenda somewhere else.
      And here is some REAL scientists at the forefront of science:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiM_gLRIuGc

      What kind of imbecile would even claims that melting
      of icecaps could cause raising sea levels? Chemistry
      class 5 – density anomaly of water, never heard of it?
      Ridicolous, the stuff these “people” come up with!
      Only a bunch of braindead monkeys would believe it (and do).

      • bikeanarchist

        There is more ice cap on the land masses of Antarctica and Greenland than in the oceans. Only a brain dead monkey would ignore the planet’s geography and geology. Plus, humans do not live in water.

      • Balázs Jávorszky

        “Chemistry class 5 – density anomaly of water, never heard of it?”
        This is why I say science is a serious thing. You got even this simple thing wrong. Water/ice density is completely irrelevant in this question. Antarctic and Greenlandic ice is on _LAND_. When it melts, the resulting water is a net contribution to the ocean regardless of the fact that its volume is less than what it used to be when it was ice. ‘Cos it has _not_ been in the water, it was on land. Again, science has to be taken seriously. And by the way, please stop BS-ing about “my agenda”. Throwing around groundless assertions about other people is usually seen as a sign of being clueless.

        • PZIVJ1943

          Agree.
          Many do not realize Greenland ice sheet is over 2km thick.
          It may be 10% less dense than seawater, this is why they call it an anomaly. Water has many strange characteristics.

      • StupidNet

        8 separate independent investigations into the “decline” story you’re trying to spread – all 8 exonerated the scientists, no decline was being hidden as you claim. The “spin” is yours – and your agenda. Land based ice melting is raising sea levels dramatically. Even Canada ice is getting in on the act: https://news.uci.edu/research/canadian-glaciers-now-major-contributor-to-sea-level-change-uci-study-shows/

    • Solomon Krupacek

      Nothing to add.

  • bikeanarchist

    Disappointing article!! No evidence, links or references to substantiate an op/ed. Does not belong on a website such as this. We have the MSM if we want to read shit like this.

  • Erik the Viking

    Dear SF

    This is a site devoted to geopolitics. Really don’t think a
    debate about climate science belongs here. The article is a poor choice. The
    oceans don’t pollute the world with carbon, there is a carbon cycle. The more
    carbon is released from fossil fuels, soil degradation and de-forestation the
    more is added to the cycle, which traps more energy in the system causing
    climate change – not just everything getting hotter. The fact that
    people with all sorts of pernicious agenda’s might use climate change to
    justify their agenda’s does not make climate change untrue. I live in rural
    Australia and I can assure you the climate and the ecology are changing. This site
    is too important to devolve into another right wing conspiracy theory blog.
    Please read my free course in public policy and specifically my ‘policy
    vignette’ on climate change here: http://www.3ptraining.com.au
    Thanks to the SF team for their contribution but please leave this topic alone.

    • Solomon Krupacek

      You are a great man!

  • Hunter1324

    Stick to military and geo-political analysis. The site doesn’t need to lift poorly researched yellow press articles about climate change. The country where I lived has been hit by an unprecedent ammount of winter rainfall which is a clear indicator of an unusually warm mean temperature in the Atlantic Ocean.

  • I call bullshit on this piece of misrepresentation. Even to explain Dr. Bates complaints requires a professional climatologist or, at minimum, data scientist. Not only is the writer unqualified for this task, he is biased and partisan.

  • Rüdiger Preiss

    WHYYYY do you guys at SF have to publish such garbage? Please. It discredits your other work you seem to be much better in.

  • Solomon Krupacek

    This article was very :(

  • StupidNet

    More deceptions here folks by the author (and endless straw arguments). The Bates story has been thoroughly disproven.
    Factcheck: Mail on Sunday’s ‘astonishing evidence’ about global temperature rise – Setting the real record straight on NOAA’s ‘data adjustments’

    Did NOAA Scientists Manipulate Climate Change Data? – Nope, just more b.s. from the connedspiracy crowd.
    Did the Daily Mail Accurately Report Climate Data Manipulation? – Horribly poor journalism tries to deceive illiterate readers.

  • Niels Engelsted

    I very much value your military analyses and I am therefore truly sorry for this article. It discredits Southfront and one wonders who managed to sneak it in. You daily remind us that SF are in need of money, but if money paved the way, you must remember that it is expensive to put your credibility up for sale.

    • Balázs Jávorszky

      “but if money paved the way”
      Huh, I hope not. Actually, RT has published a similar garbage article a week ago, and in that case I felt like they had to do it, ‘cos Russia is quite dependent on fossil fuel.

      • Niels Engelsted

        You are probably right. If your economy is based on sale of fossil fuels, climate change cannot be anthropogenic. That mindset is understandable AND LETHAL.

        • Solomon Krupacek

          He is hungarian, not russian. Over 50% who write comments are not russian.