President Dwight D. Eisenhower gave a speech before he left office in which he warned of the possibility that private industrial firms, the military and Congress would form a mutually beneficial but self-serving relationship that would promote false threats to the detriment of our liberties. He called it the “military industrial complex.”
Today, we are witnessing the collapse of the “scientific governmental complex,” a group of scientists and governmental bodies, with assistance from news organizations, that promotes false threats to the detriment of our liberties.
“Climate change” is at the apex of this new “complex.” The scientific community provides the crisis to which government responds with solutions that increase its power and control. In return, the scientific community gets increased government funding for research, and credit for saving the world. This process is enabled by newspapers, magazines and broadcast media, who act as cheerleaders.
Volumes could be written about the role of the news media in these sorts of things, but allow me one illustrative anecdote—the strange case of Paul Ehrlich and Julian Simon. Paul Ehrlich became famous with the 1968 publication of his book The Population Bomb. In it, he predicted mass starvation in the ’70s and ’80s, along with shortages of every sort of raw material. Julian Simon was an economist who was more preoccupied with facts than abstract theories. Simon proved Ehrlich wrong at every turn, and was ignored. When Ehrlich stated that it was even money that England would not exist in the year 2000, Simon challenged Ehrlich with a bet of his own: Any raw material, at any point in the future (more than one year), will not increase in price. In 1980, Ehrlich picked five industrial metals and a period of 10 years. By 1990, the prices actually dropped for all five. Ehrlich sent a check to Simon.
The point of the Ehrlich/Simon story is that facts do not matter so much: Everything Ehrlich asserted was wrong, yet he is still held in high regard, still speaks, still publishes, and his name is well-known. How many people have even heard of Julian Simon?
Anyway, the knockout punch to climate change was the stolen e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in England, the most interesting of which revealed the use of a “trick” to “hide the decline (of temperature).” The CRU was Climate Change Central, and was the source used by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Many pundits were quick to assert that the use of the word “trick” was an unfortunate choice of words, and “hide the decline” is scientific jargon for, well, you know, scientific stuff.
This issue was made clear by Malcolm Hughes, regents’ professor at the UA Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research. He was one of the recipients of the “hide the decline” e-mail. When questioned about the “trick,” he stated that it was not used by him; rather, it was used by some associates on different research. As Greg Patterson (www.espressopundit.com) pointed out, “Does he try to pawn off the story that ‘hide the decline’ is somehow ‘scientist’ talk and it’s OK? Nope. Does he claim that the ‘trick’ is an unfortunate choice of words, but actually represents an acceptable statistical adjustment? Nope. Does he defend the author in any way? Not at all. In fact, Hughes immediately distances himself from (his colleagues) and the rest of those who participated in the e-mail exchange.” In other words, Hughes knows they are guilty of faking the data; the e-mails reveal it; and he’s running the other way.
After stepping down as the head of CRU, Phil Jones recently conceded that the Medieval Warming Period (warmer than now) may have been a global phenomenon, and that there has been no statistically significant warming in the last 15 years. He also stated that he no longer has the original data used to generate the famous “hockey stick” graph. The IPCC has backed off its claim that ocean levels will rise 2 1/2 feet over the next 100 years, citing problems with their computer model, and is making no further claims in regard to changes in ocean levels.
I know people are still going to heroic lengths to defend the notion of impending doom, even in the pages of the Tucson Weekly. However, it is significant that Tucson’s own climate scientist Malcolm Hughes is not.
This article appears in Mar 25-31, 2010.
Jonathan,
The “military industrial complex” has not collapsed. Eisenhower warned of false threats to the detriment of our liberties. The very large and costly “military industrial complex” continues to draw down the moral high ground of our nation and replacing it with in fear and further loss of our independence and Liberty. Our money and quality of life is still in the hands of powerful Corporations not in the will of the citizen………and so is the truth about science and “Climate change”.
Please educate yourself on real threats to our liberties.
Scientific or not, jargon or not, glaciers are melting, pollution levels are rising. These scientists must have got caught on a dead end–but the phenomenon they are trying to explain, and couldn’t, is happening. According to writer, we should just keep going down an insanely destructive road and keep doing what we are doing. Call it what you want–wouldn’t everyone be better off if we had cleaner air, water and soil?
Yes its another lie that the Government wants us to believe (For our own good of course) So they can Tax every part of our life.And Al Gore is linked with companies that he will get a portion of the taxes to line his pockets ,like so many other politicians today Health care! Money is what its all about for the corporate takeover of the USA Wakeup People!
infowars.com
What are Jonathan Hoffman’s credentials in climate research?
Hey not bad. Partisan opinion article writer aside, 3 out of 4 previous are actually sensible comments!
You would think from this article that the CRU at the University of East Anglia was the only scientific source of research on climate change. I wish I could remember the in-depth reports I read about the e-mails in question, but I do remember that the explanations were not the one’s put forth by this author. Like NanFree says: The glaciers ARE melting. Polar bears are dying because the timing of walrus and seal migration, and the diminishing floes have combined to make their age old hunting patterns unviable. The raise in temperatures of the ocean has resulted in much more powerful hurricanes. Would it be so bad if money went in to research to make wind and solar power more affordable and accessible? to be less dependent of oil?
The writer isn’t advocating continuing down an “insanely destructive road”. He’s correctly pointing out that the fraud behind the lucrative global warming research industry has been exposed.
Glaciers melt and freeze. Average global temperatures rise and fall. It’s been happening for eons. The distinction between climate change and human environmental impact has become intentionally blurred by researchers who have been shown to tamper with data to avoid having the federal funding spigot turned off.
Of course we all want cleaner air, water and soil. That’s precisely the problem with the global warming myth. It diverts attention from the real environmental hazards like heavy-metal contamination, fouling of the oceans and coral reef destruction, over-forestation…. There’s a long list of things we should be putting our efforts and energy into instead of marching like a bunch of zombies in whatever direction Al Gore deems appropriate. I know he’s a Nobel laureate and invented the Internet, but he’s not a climatologist.
Cah:
When you say heavy metal contamination is this what you mean?
http://www.aolnews.com/nanotech/article/am…
SamhainAZ,
Thanks for the reference.
Knock it off….”Progressives and phony ecologists” don’t like reason and facts. They like Al Gore and the bark huger crowd who make stuff up.
Well written and thoughtful.
Thank you
This was a nonsensical opinion piece intended to stir the pot, but not revealing any new facts or reasons to debate the climate change theory itself.
“Volumes could be written about the role of the news media in these sorts of things, but allow me one illustrative anecdote”-Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring.
A few other jewels from past TW pieces written by Mr. Hoffman that should put his current opinion piece in proper perspective:
“This is American citizenship as God and James Madison intended.” (Mr. Hoffman apparently believes that God has intentions as to how a good citizen should act)
“The fact is that “gun-free zones” do not deter violence; rather, they invite it. They provide a safe place to murder.” (more guns, good; less guns, bad)
“Anyway, off to the People’s Republic of California my lovely wife and I were, specifically, San Diego.” (Is anybody starting to see a pattern here?)
In short, Mr. Hoffman appears to have graduated with high honors from the University of Glenn Beck. His opinions should be viewed from the proper perspective.
What is breaking down are the advertisers of “climate-change” abilities to effect a self-conscious change in the National psychic economy. They have been flooding the marketplace with suggestions. They suggest that we buy climate-change in order to encounter something in the realm of social or psychological experience that has been previously unavailable to us.