Climategate Part Two: Once again, global-warming deniers say they’ve come up with a scandal

Remember the big CLIMATEGATE “scandal” of a few years ago? 

Global-warming deniers everywhere were dancing in the streets with delight over what they considered to be good evidence that the pointy-headed scientists at those fancy universities had been lying about human-caused climate change.

Unfortunately for the flat-earthers, however, investigation after investigation showed that there was nothing in the so-called scandal that disproved mainstream scientific theories regarding anthopogenic global warming.

The most delicious aspect of the Climategate affair was that it gave rise to the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) study, which was funded in part by Charles Koch, a notorious global-warming denier.

The study was led by physicist Richard Muller, who had previously been a global-warming skeptic (which is different from a denier). His new research opened Muller’s eyes, as we see HERE:

Muller said that he came into the study “with a proper skepticism,” something scientists “should always have. I was somewhat bothered by the fact that there was not enough skepticism” before.

There is no reason now to be a skeptic about steadily increasing temperatures, Muller wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal’s editorial pages, a place friendly to skeptics. Muller did not address in his research the cause of global warming. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists say it’s man-made from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil. Nor did his study look at ocean warming, future warming and how much of a threat to mankind climate change might be.

Still, Muller said it makes sense to reduce the carbon dioxide created by fossil fuels.

“Greenhouse gases could have a disastrous impact on the world,” he said. Still, he contends that threat is not as proven as the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is.

The BEST STUDY, as you might expect, has been a blow to the cause of denialism, especially among the people who approach the subject purely from a political or cultural perspective with no grounding in science.

But lo and behold! These knee-jerk deniers once again are dancing in the streets. They’ve come up with another Climategate affair. But one climate scientist calls this new so-called scandal “two-year-old turkey from Thanksgiving 2009.”

Read all about it HERE

(The image above is from the Web site of the Daily Telegraph, a British paper.)

UPDATE: There’s more on this matter HERE (including scads of good links).

UPDATE II: THIS GUY, a writer for the uber-libertarian Heartland Institute (which also is funded in part by the Koch Brothers), seems to think this new so-called scandal is a really big deal.

But then, this same guy also is a fan of the Rodney Dangerfield of climatologists (see HERE).



  1. Knut Witberg

    The BEST study of temperature records is not a proof of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) ie warming caused by humans. The debate about temperatures are about the quality of data. Most skeptics, among them Stephen MacIntyre, believe that there is evident that the temperature did increase in the 90-ties and that the increase has halted after 1998. This debate is about methods, the impact of urban heat islands etc.

    Another debate is about whether a warmer climate will lead to more extreme weather event. Some scientists say that there will be fewer but stronger tropical storms. The increase they say will probably be 10-20 % in energy, ie the wind speed will increase by 3-6 % or so.

    Yet another debate, and in most people’s mind the most important, is about how much the temperature will rise with a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial level, i.e. from 280 ppm to 560 ppm. We have now a CO2 level of 392 ppm. It is generally agreed that a doubling of CO2 will ceteris paribus (all other things unchanged) will cause an increase of the temperature of about 1C. But many things will most likely change causing several “feed backs” or “forceing”. Some will be positive and increase the temperature further, some will be negative. There is a whole spectra of opinions from a total of 0,5C to 6,8C. There is a tendency of a lower total estimate today than some years ago.

    and so on…

    And then we have the non-scientific debate whether the IPCC is impartial or not. One have to read the emails and check back on the debate (almost all of it is still on the net) and make ones own opinion. This is what Climategate is all about.

    Please don`t mix everything up. That leads nowhere.

  2. genealogymaster

    Its pretty obvious you haven’t read the emails I wouldn’t trust those high priests of their screeching religion at all. The emails speak volumes about how unfit they are to receive money. The enquiries were whitewashes and the public knows it.

  3. genealogymaster: Brilliant comment! Such insightful analysis!

    Let me guess. You probably don’t believe in evolution either, right? Yeah, what does those phony scientists know about stuff like that?

    Anyway, let us know when you come up with evidence that these e-mails prove that mainstream scientific theories on anthropogenic global warming are wrong.

    We’ll be waiting.

  4. Yep it was not oa cover up. Penn State would never try to hide anything.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *