As Climategate exploded prior to a December U.N. conference in Copenhagen that failed to produce a global agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions, top environmental officials in Canada tried to paint a happy face on the scandal. The country’s Canwest News Service reports this morning that a top-ranking official with Environment Canada produced a memo for Environment Minister Jim Prentice — just before his participation in Copenhagen — that defended the integrity of the UN IPCC science:
The personal e-mails exchanged by climate scientists wound up in the hands of special-interest groups who say they are skeptical about peer-reviewed research that concludes humans are causing global warming….
But in the memorandum obtained by Canwest News Service, Environment Canada’s deputy minister, Ian Shugart, suggested the skeptics had it wrong. He explained the scientific information in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest assessment of climate-change research was still the best reference tool for the negotiations.
“Recent media reports in the aftermath of the hacking incident at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia . . . has raised some concerns about the reliability and robustness of some of the science considered in the (fourth assessment of climate science released in 2007 by the) IPCC,” said the memorandum to Prentice from his deputy minister…
“Despite these developments, the department continues to view the IPCC (fourth assessment) as the most comprehensive and rigorous source of scientific information for climate-change negotiations.”
We’ve seen since then the birth of numerous other “Gates,” which revealed “rigorous” IPCC science sources such as student dissertations, climbing magazines, publications including Leisure and Events Management, and World Wildlife Fund pamphlets.
Canwest also reported how the Canadian memo cited the evidence from temperature records:
The document also noted that temperature records in the report, which have been challenged by climate skeptics, were based on four different scientific agencies.
“All four data sets provide a very similar picture of the warming over land over the 20th century.”
We’ve now also learned that three of the four datasets that IPCC depended upon for their scientific research were tainted, thanks to evidence revealed from a Freedom of Information Act inquiry by Chris Horner at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. And then there was this BBC report about fudge factors and messy data, just after Climategate was exposed.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org
Ah yes. The hacking line. Was anything ever proven there?
I'm surprised when people compliment the BBC, who seem like ardent 'Climate-gatekeepers' when I switch the box on. That report seemed little more than lip-service.
I'm surprised people say our media for airs this stuff more than the US media. Are we all getting a distorted impression, from the internet, that it's more balanced on the other side of the Atlantic? I speculate! I have little evidence! I suppose KUSI News is not watched as widely as CNN…
I've said it before; my disappointment over Climategate is simply that so many think it's the *only* reason for scepticism, when it just confirmed what we already knew. The conspiracy exposed is no larger or smaller than what I'd previously thought existed; it's certainly not the infeasibly huge kind that gets capitalised as Conspiracy Theory.
We all accept some conspiracies. We all either believe in Watergate, or Watergategate — the idea that Watergate wasn't a real conspiracy but a fake one, cooked up by a larger, real one!
Conspiracy theories fly both ways on this. The irony has been noted by many others already, that warmists make the accusations they do while so proudly wearing the adverts of their own sponsors.
Governments & big oil, meanwhile, seem to love the hype. Check their websites. Exxon, (the only oil company if Greenpeace are to be believed), say of course global warming is real. Guess who's going to save us from it?
I say to many conspiracy theorists, "The self-consistency of a theory is not evidence by itself; it would however be a good start." As for our own conspiracy theory, well, how much corroborating evidence do we need?
Roll on, the Heartland Conference, May 2010!
Your swift boat was effective but is starting to sink.
Comments on this entry are closed.