Source: Herald Sun
by Andrew Bolt
Clive Crook may be a warmist, but is honest enough to describe whitewash when he sees it:
I am for a carbon tax. I also believe that the Climategate emails revealed, to an extent that surprised even me (and I am difficult to surprise), an ethos of suffocating groupthink and intellectual corruption?
I had hoped, not very confidently, that the various Climategate inquiries would be severe. This would have been a first step towards restoring confidence in the scientific consensus. But no, the reports make things worse. At best they are mealy-mouthed apologies; at worst they are patently incompetent and even wilfully wrong. The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause.
The Penn State inquiry exonerating Michael Mann?the paleoclimatologist who came up with ?the hockey stick??would be difficult to parody. Three of four allegations are dismissed out of hand at the outset: the inquiry announces that, for ?lack of credible evidence?, it will not even investigate them…. Moving on, the report then says, in effect, that Mann is a distinguished scholar, a successful raiser of research funding, a man admired by his peers?so any allegation of academic impropriety must be false?
Further ?vindication? of the Climategate emailers was to follow, of course, in Muir Russell?s equally probing investigation. To be fair, Russell manages to issue a criticism or two. He says the scientists were sometimes ?misleading??but without meaning to be (a plea which, in the case of the ?trick to hide the decline?, is an insult to one?s intelligence). On the apparent conspiracy to subvert peer review, it found that the ?allegations cannot be upheld??but, as the impressively even-handed Fred Pearce of the Guardian notes, this was partly on the grounds that ?the roles of CRU scientists and others could not be distinguished from those of colleagues. There was ?team responsibility?.? Edward Acton, vice-chancellor of the university which houses CRU, calls this ?exoneration?.
The Economist, which initially played down the scandal, is almost as astonished by the refusal of the Climategate inquiries to examine the science:
An earlier report on climategate from the House of Commons assumed that a subsequent probe by a panel under Lord Oxburgh, a former academic and chairman of Shell, would deal with the science. The Oxburgh report, though, sought to show only that the science was not fraudulent or systematically flawed, not that it was actually reliable. And nor did Sir Muir, with this third report, think judging the science was his job.
Financial Review journalist Mark Lawson has had enough of this madness. From the blurb for his new book, A Guide to Climate Change Lunacy:
Activists and even some scientists will tell you that the science behind the expected major warming of the globe is rock solid. In fact, the projections of temperature increases in coming decades are based on entirely unproven forecasting systems which depend on guesses about crucial aspects of the atmosphere behaviour and the all-important oceans. In addition, these forecasts use carbon dioxide emission scenarios that have been generated by economic calculations rather than from science, and parts of which are already hopelessly wrong less than a decade after they were made.
As Mark Lawson explains in this book, in layman?s language, this lunacy has been compounded by further forecasts based on these already deeply flawed projections and combined with active imaginations, to produce wild statements about what will happen to plant, animal, bird and marine life, as well as coral reefs, hurricanes, sea levels, agriculture and polar ice caps. The books shows that these projections are little more than fantasy.
On top of all this lunacy activists, aided and abetted by some scientists, have proposed a range of solutions to the supposed problem that are either never going to work, such as an international agreement to cut emissions, or are overly complicated and expensive for no proven return, such as carbon trading systems and wind energy. None of these proposals have been shown to be of any use in reducing carbon emissions, outside of theoretical studies. Where wind energy has been used in substantial amounts overseas the sole, known result has been very expensive electricity for no observed saving in emissions.