“It’s impossible to find anything wrong if you really aren’t looking…. [Sir Muir Russell’s committee] only interviewed CRU people, not the people whom they had trashed.” (Patrick Michaels, below)

On the 16th anniversary of Climategate, an editorial from 2010 by the late Patrick J. Michaels, is as timely as ever. Michaels, the most trenchant climate scientist against the alarmist consensus, would be pleased with the demise of the Paris Agreement and ‘Net Zero’ at this year’s COP30. His editorial published in the Wall Street Journal (July 12, 2010) follows.

Global warming alarmists claim vindication after last year’s data manipulation scandal. Don’t believe the ‘independent’ reviews.

Last November there was a world-wide outcry when a trove of emails were released suggesting some of the world’s leading climate scientists engaged in professional misconduct, data manipulation and jiggering of both the scientific literature and climatic data to paint what scientist Keith Briffa called “a nice, tidy story” of climate history.…

“There is no doubt that these emails are embarrassing and a public-relations disaster for science.” – Andrew Dessler, “Climate E-Mails Cloud the Debate,” December 10, 2009.

Another anniversary is marked regarding one of the greatest scientific scandals in the history of physical science, politicized physical science. Many books have been written on Climategate, one of the best, in terms of finding middle ground, being Fred Pearce’s The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth About Global Warming (Random House UK: 2010).

Pearce, then climate reporter at the The Guardian, wrote an extensive opinion-page editorial at the Progressive Left organ. His “Climategate’ was PR disaster that could bring healthy reform of peer Review,” was fronted by this editor note:

In a unique experiment, The Guardian published online the full manuscript of its major investigation into the climate science emails stolen from the University of East Anglia, which revealed apparent attempts to cover up flawed data; moves to prevent access to climate data; and to keep research from climate sceptics out of the scientific literature.

“[The Paris agreement] is a fraud really, a fake…. It’s just worthless words.” ( – James Hansen, below)

COP30, a CO2-fest of sorts, is failing. Major emitters have not shown up. Virtually all nations and regions are in serious noncompliance with their Paris Agreement goals according to Climate Tracker, and the gap is widening. The new pitch is less about emissions as about the fantasy of cheap wind and solar and batteries heralding a new energy era. Yet the energy transition has been demoted to energy addition (Daniel Yergin) and now energy duplication. Think rising energy prices from climate policy….

Hansen on Paris

James Hansen is a realist when it comes to the United Nations’ global warming negotiations; wind and solar energies; and the lobbying frenzy surrounding the issue. His statements should be remembered as the Paris Climate Agreement, the successor to the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, turns ten years old this month.…

“Bill Gates has been rightly slammed for his anti-scientific memo calling for shifting our focus away from ‘near-term’ emissions cuts. Tragically, that shift could cause the very doomsday scenario he dismisses.” (Joe Romm, below)

Doomism is alive and well at the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Science, Sustainability, and the Media, despite Michael Mann’s advice to the contrary. It exists in the person of Joe Romm, Mann’s colleague. Maybe the two need to meet to figure out how to alarm but not be alarming….

“Gates is wrong,” Joe Romm reports. “Global warming could well ‘decimate civilization’, but his ‘strategic pivot’ would make catastrophic warming far more likely.” Doomster Romm continues:

Bill Gates has been rightly slammed for his anti-scientific memo calling for shifting our focus away from “near-term” emissions cuts.