“… there are plenty of climate science deniers here to vehemently argue for the defendants’ case [in Mann v. Steyn]…. It is profoundly saddening when you realize that the platform I am writing this on would most probably not remove these people’s posts in the form they were written had somebody reported them.” – Gunnar Schade

Readers at MasterResource already know about Andrew Dessler, chair professor in Texas A&M’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences, who morphs from scientist (his job) to biased, emotional advocacy. Lawyer-like, Dessler makes the best case for alarm rather than honestly considering other views and weaknesses in his argument. His emotional outbursts at his critics and utter distain at the general population (“assholes“) who reject his uber-Climate Alarmism marginalizes him outside of the Church of Climate.…

“So, it seems the [COP 28] agreement establishes that we can ‘abate’ fossil fuel plant emissions to produce more fossil fuels. Does anything capture the Orwellian nature of this agreement better?”

“After eight years, not one of the top 10 greenhouse gas emitting countries has adopted ‘policies and action’ capable of meeting the Paris climate targets.” (Joe Romm, 12-20-2024)

Yes, Joe. The international crusade against carbon dioxide (CO2)–really affordable, reliable, storable, convenient energies–has been a failure. The futile crusade is now in its 36th year with 28 annual COP meetings come-and-gone. Fossil fuels are presently in a tripartite boom with no end in sight.

This reality is an open secret that the Climate PR Complex does not want people to know. Meanwhile, every day of fossil fuel dominance makes a reversal of atmospheric CO2 less and less feasible.…

“Gaygate 2023 and Climategate 2009 reinforce each other. So when will basic honesty and academic standards return to academia? To climate science?”

It’s a whitewash–again. The plagiarism (and data falsification?) of Harvard president Claudine Gay brings to mind the similar exposé of the Climategate emails, whose words, sentences, and paragraphs had to be swept under the rug back in 2009/2010 by an embarrassed establishment protecting its own. [1]

Wiki’s whitewash, for example, brought attention to the source (“denialists”) and then misrepresented the importance of the exposé.

The story was first broken by climate-change denialists, who argued that the emails showed that global warming was a scientific conspiracy and that scientists manipulated climate data and attempted to suppress critics. The CRU [Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia] rejected this, saying that the emails had been taken out of context.

Editor Note: It was during Thanksgiving weekend 2009 that the unsettling oeuvre that became known as Climategate was disseminated. This post summarizes some remembrances from that period.

“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)

“They were shown: contriving to destroy inconvenient data in order to evade FOI inquiries; attempting to shut down scientific journals which published studies unhelpful to their cause; viciously bullying dissenters; even trying to rewrite history, for example, to erase the widely recognised Medieval Warming Period.” (James Delingpole, “My Finest Hour,” November 9, 2019)

Climategate lives in infamy. It remains a historic case study of agendas driving “science” rather than science informing agendas. Fourteen years ago, climate alarmists and friends of the involved scientists (including Dessler above) went into damage control.…