The release of the Climategate emails has caused the world to look at the methods of leading climate scientists with much greater skepticism and concern.
The well-documented, thoroughly dissected emails revealed that data was manipulated to hide temperature trends that were not favorable to researchers’ intended outcomes. Using their positions of power in the field, leading climate scientists kept man-made global warming skeptics from publishing in scientific journals. They perverted the “peer review” process by reviewing their research papers among themselves. Emails were deleted to hide information from authorities after Freedom of Information Act requests were made (Nixonian behavior which made the “Climategate” moniker especially apt).
The list of questionable — and possibly criminal — activities goes on and on.
Emails obtained by the Washington Times reveal that climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences seem to be feeling a bit wounded: they say they are “tired of being treated like political pawns.” And just as a physically wounded creature fights back with even more aggression after an injury, instinctively knowing its very existence may be in peril, the Times emails show that climate scientists are planning “an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach” to strike back at their “enemies.”
One of the scientists quoted in the emails is Stanford University researcher Paul Ehrlich. He writes:
Most of our colleagues don’t seem to grasp that we’re not in a gentlepersons debate, we’re in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules.
This is the same Paul Ehrlich who in 1968 wrote in his book The Population Bomb:
The battle to feed all of humanity is over. … In the 1970s and 1980s hundred of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.
This prediction was of course wrong, but most disturbing was his fascistic advice: he advocated the use of “compulsory birth regulation (using) the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food.” He was quoted in 1992 as saying: “Giving the world cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving a child a machine gun.” In 1990, he said: “We’ve already had too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich counties like ours is a disease, not the cure.”
With his history of misanthropy and totalitarianism, it’s no wonder that Ehrlich went on to become a man-made global warming crusader.