How much more climate change propaganda must we endure? Liberals’ solutions for what ails the world are based on the belief that carbon dioxide is climate-heating. Yet another study shows this to be rubbish. A study in the journal Science found that global temperatures appear to be far less sensitive to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere than originally estimated. This study is another in a long line of revelations showing the scientific fraud at the heart of the global warming movement. Among leading European climate-change scientists, there has been a vast, global green conspiracy to silence scientific opposition to the idea, even to the point of falsifying data. The left’s false global warming ideology is collapsing under a growing body of evidence that the CO2 scare is a fraud.
Recently a batch of e-mails from “global warming scientists” have come to light on the eve of the latest round of UN climate talks in Durban, South Africa. Over 5,000 e-mails have been uncovered, and three themes emerge from them:
- Climate research scientists are taking measures to conceal rather than freely disseminate data and discussions.
- Climate research scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a scientific inquiry.
- Climate research scientists admit to each other that much of the climate change “science” is weak and dependent on manipulation of facts and data.
“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,” writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in a 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.”  [emphasis mine]
“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment.
The storm surrounding the leaked e-mails underlines the need for climate researchers to be more open about their research. But the researchers cannot be open. One University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit e-mail discusses not including too much “optimistic stuff” into studies about the extent of man-made global warming. To try to counter the e-mails, environmental public opinion expert Riley Dunlap of Oklahoma State University in Stillwater, says, “the timing of the (e-mail) release really does show the tactics that opponents of regulation at all costs pursue in the face of this meeting.”
American taxpayers, through “assessed” dues, account for 22% of the United Nation’s (U.N.) regular operating budget. China, for comparison, contributes 3% of the U.N. budget.