A few decades back, an upstanding member of the global warming alarmist community said that if the public was going to take the threat of man-caused climate change seriously, the alarmists were going to have to exaggerate the evidence.
It was in 1989 that Stephen Schneider wrote in Discover magazine that in order “to capture the public’s imagination . . . we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”
Let’s not forget that the late climatologist was first a believer in global cooling in the 1970s. He was worried that a new ice age was coming.
Of course the alarmist community has followed Schneider’s script. It’s spent much of the last three decades trying to spook the public into a panic.
One example of this agenda to drive fright into our brains was the ClimateGate scandal at Britain’s University of East Anglia. A series of email threads between climate scientists showed that they were torturing the temperature data to produce evidence of warming that wasn’t occurring.
Who can forget their conspiracy to “hide the decline”?
Don’t think this is an isolated incident. News out of the United Kingdom over the weekend tells us that “world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data.”
“A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the United Nations climate conference in Paris in 2015,” the Daily Mail reports.
“The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 — revealed by U.N. scientists in 2013 — never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected.”
The Daily Mail identifies the whistleblower as “John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation.” His strong objections to the publication “of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact.’ ”
Bates blames Thomas Karl, the paper’s lead author, whom he said insisted “on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation . . . in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause.”