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.
He and many other global warming alarmists follow a pattern outlined by Leon Festinger in his book When Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group that Predicted the Destruction of the World. Festinger points out that those who believe strongly about an issue share common threads:
The belief must be held with deep conviction and it must have some relevance to action.
Global warming alarmists believe deeply that human burning of fossil fuels is unquestionably altering the climate and that something must be done to stop it.
Festinger also writes:
The person holding the belief must have committed himself to it, that is for the sake of his belief he must have taken some important action. The more important those actions are the greater the individuals commitment to the belief.
Global warming advocates see no other alternative to what is causing temperature to rise. They publish papers based on computer models that predict more warming and use these papers to better their professional careers. In doing so they are irrevocably committed to man-made global warming, and the more papers they publish the more committed they become.
The belief must be sufficiently specific and sufficiently concerned with the real world so that events may unequivocally refute the belief.
Scientific evidence reveals that global warming stopped in 1998. The data show a slight cooling since 2001. Phil Jones, former head of the Climate Research Unit, admits the Medieval Warm Period may have been warmer than today. He also states that there has been “no statistically significant global warming for 15 years.” Scientific evidence has revealed that carbon dioxide is only a bit player in global climate change.
The individual believer must have social support. It is unlikely that one isolated believer could withstand the kind of disconfirming evidence that has been specified.
The disconfirming evidence is the thousands of scientists across the world in hundreds of peer-reviewed papers showing that the human component in climate change is insignificantly small.
If, however the believer is a member of a group of convinced persons who can support each other, the belief can be maintained and the believers may attempt to persuade nonmembers that the belief is correct.
Perhaps in the form of “an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach” to strike back at their “enemies.”
The global warming “science” community is feeling threatened by evidence and revealing emails — their funding, and therefore their careers, may be in peril. In reaction to this, they will mount an even more alarmist campaign to convince the world — and themselves — that humans cause global warming and that it must be stopped. As global temperature fails to rise in the future, we will be bombarded by increasingly shrill cries of global warming catastrophe. All forms of weather — cold, hot, record snow, record heat, floods, droughts, or anything else — will be considered proof of global warming. A more than willing media desperate for spectacular headlines will give them the front page.
A creature or group that is damaged psychically will respond like a wounded animal. The ensuing attack will be more aggressive and prolonged — an attempt to convince their “enemies” that they are correct, just as Leon Festinger predicted long ago.