http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/science/earth/03climate.html

Framing the debate in this way might help historians of science when they deal with Climategate.

Really, this is about organizational failure rather than one company (Enron) or manstream climate science. It can be applied to a variety of situations and gets to best business practices, an area in which you are expert!

The hypothesized mechanism is provided by the absorption bands of CO2 that are located near the peak of the black-body spectrum at the mean temperature of the Earth.

That said your point about Enron is spot on. Global Warming has never been about the fear of global warming. It has always been about manipulating the supply and demand for energy. By 2000 it was obvious that computer technology was going to accelerate the future at a pace never thought possible. Huge amounts of information, data, mail, video, audio, etc, could suddenly globally distributed at the speed of light for an immeasurably small cost. No longer were trucks, airplanes, boats, cars, etc required. This would be a HUGE hit to the demand for oil. This without even considering the ever increasing likelihood of some new perpetual energy source being discovered or created. So what was the result? Manipulate demand!

Global warming was never about the fear of global warming, it has always been about the fear of taking your energy away. It is not a coincidence that the heyday of Enron, the war in Iraq, and the ramping up of Global Warming politics so closely coincided. All were moves to create the threat of supply being taken off the table to increase demand. Insider trading for a priviliged and connected few. And of course carbon markets were simultaneously the facade and the hedge. The escape clause in case the plan worked TOO well. So of course Enron turned to politics to become who they were. ACTUALLY reducing the energy supply was not an option. There are enough discovered resources on this planet to last the world a millennia or more. FACT. They needed the lies, doublespeak and misdirection of politics to provide them the THREAT of a reduced energy supply. And it nearly worked. Recall that in 2008 some half a trillion barrels of oil were discovered in the western hemisphere yet oil shot up to $137 a barrel. Ask your economics teacher to explain that supply and demand relationship to you.

But sadly the reason for the scam was ultimately its undoing. You see not only does the internet eliminate the need for lots of oil use, but it also renders nearly every bit of data in the world accessible, even against the best efforts of those trying to keep it hidden. And it was only a matter of time before the deceit, manipulations of science, and utter fallacy of it all were exposed. Now is that time. And I still expect it to get bigger and worse. The collapse of the AGW hoax will make Enron’s scandal look like an honest accounting error before its all said and done. And the answers to your 7 questions will seem hilariously insignificant…

That the scientific investigation about the behavior of climate around the planet is so very new, and since even the baseline data for this enterprise remains relatively inchoate, and because the variables involved are so complex and entwined–it is astonishing that the grand narrative of Global Warming has gotten this much traction as science–and not science fiction. Ken Lay certainly didn’t need H.G. Wells when he had James Hanson, et al.

When the provisional ideas of ongoing scientific inquiry become politicized and then supported by a concatenation of groups seeking to profit from the idea–when science meets James Cameron and becomes entertainment for the masses in order to sell soap, then we’ll get what we have–with the pigs now flying up and out of the public trough, everywhere.