Why Are Climategate Charlatans Still Free?
If I had engaged in activities that involved fleecing the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom of billions in public funds in the name of “climate research”, and it was found that I had manipulated the data to advance the “global warming” hoax, wouldn’t I be facing charges of fraud?
Or if the universities for which I worked had benefited from receiving those public funds had conducted hearings that exonerated me, wouldn’t those institutions be considered accessories to the alleged crime?
This is the case today for the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England and Pennsylvania State University in America. If the CRU is above suspicion, why did the U.S. Department of Energy suspend funds for it in July citing scientific doubts raised by the Climategate revelations last November?
Leaked emails between the principal players, CRU’s Phil Jones and Penn State’s Michael Mann, documented their dismay over the fact that the overall temperatures of the Earth were not increasing and colluded to suppress any expression of global warming skepticism in respected science journals.
Indeed, one of Mr. Jones emails admitted that he had “deleted loads of emails” to avoid being exposed lest someone bring a Freedom of Information Act request. In July a Wall Street Journal commentary by Patrick J. Michaels, a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, noted that at the heart of the yet unresolved issues are “professional misconduct, data manipulation, and the jiggering of both the scientific literature and climatic data.”
A newspaper serving the area where Penn State is located published an article on July 12, 2010 by Louis Lombardi reporting that it had “cleared Mann of any wrongdoing” but that “the university was in no position to investigate one of its own or, stated differently, to investigate itself. Over the years, Mann had brought in millions of dollars for the university through his research. For the university to come to any other conclusion than that he acted appropriately would be an admission that the university has been fleecing those who gave the money.”
A similar whitewash occurred in England when Phil Jones and the CRU was investigated by a supposedly independent review, but one of the four members of the panel was Prof. Geoffrey Boulton, a member of the faculty of East Anglia’s School of Environmental Science for 18 years. A previous internal investigation by the university was similar to Penn State’s, clearing Jones of any charges.
Under any other circumstances, Michael Mann and Phil Jones, to name just two participants, would be subject to trials to determine whether they had, in fact, deceived their respective governments and other donors in order to receive the funding that was at the core of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel (IPCC) reports asserting that the Earth was heating up and that carbon dioxide emissions had to be limited to avoid it.
As this is being written the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is seeking to assert authority to control carbon dioxide emissions despite evidence of a global fraud and mountains of scientific data that indicate CO2 plays no role in a fraudulent “global warming.” All utilities, industries and businesses in America generate CO2 in the normal course of producing or using electricity for manufacturing and countless other uses.
The prospect of Republicans gaining control of Congress, likely in the House of Representatives, if not the Senate, suggests that, despite having been cleared by Penn State, Michael Mann will face an investigation. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has made it known that a probe of the Climategate scandal will be at the top of his environmental agenda.
The funding at issue was public funding, the taxes paid by Americans and in England by its citizens. It will never be repaid, but the public has a right to know if its taxes underwrote a global hoax, a fraud primarily perpetrated by the United Nations and countless other parties seeking to create a market for “carbon credits” to be bought and sold on various exchanges.