A CRACK IN THE ICE, OR THE HEAT SHIELD, OR SOMETHIN' – AT 11:47 A.M. ET:  Reader, and Professor, Sam Indorante, alerts us to an excellent piece that sums up the disillusion that some people are starting to feel over the global-warming craze.  We're encouraged when journalists join the ranks of those willing to inquire.  From Honolulu magazine:

I never expected the terms “green,” “sustainability” and “carbon footprint” would be hurled at us daily, secular guilt crammed into every consumer choice. But I especially never expected that some of the leading scientists who argue the case for manmade global warming would be revealed as political partisans, who hid evidence against global warming, attempted to redefine the meaning of “peer-reviewed journals” to mean “only peers who agree with us” and, worst of all, conspired to delete data in anticipation of Freedom of Information requests.

That's a delightful mea culpa.  We forgive you for "never expecting."  Neither did most of us. 

Let me back up. Because of manmade global warming, I warned in 1996, that “sea levels could rise as much as three feet by the year 2100 … warming can lead to hotter and more frequent heat waves … stronger and more frequent hurricanes to Hawai‘i … endanger native plants species [and] coral reefs.” These dire predictions came from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Researchers at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia provide much of the IPCC’s analysis and predictions. In November 2009, hackers released thousands of e-mails from the CRU, going back years, and it is these e-mails that reveal the very unscientific, unethical activities I described above.

I feel I’ve been had.

Good!  The more self-revelation like this, the better.  Now we've got to get some of the egos on the left to admit that they, too, have been had. 

This doesn’t necessarily mean manmade global warming is disproven. But it does deflate the certainty and moral righteousness of the Al Gores and the IPCCs of the world. At Copenhagen and in Congress, politicians have proposed massive disruptions to our economies and lifestyles in the name of halting global warming. It turns out they’ve been doing so, at least partly, with books that have been cooked more than the planet.

And there was an Oscar in it for Gore.

People make these kinds of mistakes all the time, and the motives are no mystery. For the researchers, grant dollars and reputations are on the line. For reporters, global warming offers the thrill of covering The Biggest Story Ever Told, an appeal I could not resist. For politicians, it has offered an endless opportunity for grandstanding and power grabs. Convinced they are saving the earth—what could be more rewarding or important?—all three groups helped each other lose their minds.

Finally...

It’s time for scientists to do what science is all about: check their work to see if the results can be reproduced. Fresh eyes need to look at the original data the CRU used, to see if they can independently find the same evidence for warming. But wait—that can’t be done. Somehow, the CRU managed to “lose” all its original data.

How’s that for an inconvenient truth?

Wonderful, wonderful.  But there has been no penetration of the White House, or the left wing of the Democratic Party, which continue as if no questions have been asked.  The reason they do is that, for them, global warming isn't a scientific issue, but a political excuse.  It's an excuse for them to change the way we live, the way society is organized.  That is their dream, part of their totalitarian temptation to control.  Facts mean very little in the face of a grandiose scheme like that...all designed for our improvement, of course.

February 6, 2010