Pity the poor Climategaters. The staid were played. Gentlepersons were violated. And the billion-dollar global warming science complex can't compete with spunky skeptics.
Those are some of the complaints registered in newly disclosed emails among members of the National Academy of Sciences, whose messages were mysteriously made public last week via the Washington Times. Some call it Climategate II; Whinergate is more apropos.
Among their electronically-sent lamentations:
• "Most of our colleagues don't seem to grasp that we're not in a gentlepersons' debate, we're in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules," said Paul "Nostradamus" Ehrlich, a Stanford University biologist.
• "This was an outpouring of angry frustration on the part of normally very staid scientists who said, 'God, can't we have a civil dialogue here and discuss the truth without spinning everything,'" said Stephen H. Schneider, a Stanford professor and senior fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment.
• "They're not going to win short-term battles playing the game against big-monied interests because they can't beat them," Schneider, in a phone interview, talking about alleged competition with energy company funding of skeptics.
Wow -- Schneider, who in a November interview with the New Republic announced, "I am an activist," claims that he spurns spin. Just check the rest of his rhetoric from a few months ago:
• "The models have done really well on temperature over a long time period so we trust that."
• "The IPCC says, 'One to five degrees warming [by 2100]' for example. That is an expert judgment; it's subjective, but built on objective modeling and data."
• "I don't have aggregate dollars as my moral principle -- I look at who's responsible."
Yes, the models were so good they missed the non-warming of the last 15 years -- probably thanks to the Climategaters' unassailable data. And like most alarmists who speak from the global warming script, Schneider looks only at opponents' aggregate cash while linking it to their immoral stands against "science." Meanwhile we are to believe his objective team of activists is untainted by the many more billions of dollars that flow to their research institutes and eco-minded nonprofits.
And undoubtedly it was principled, trustworthy, objective modeling and data that informed Schneider's most recent (November) book: Science as a Contact Sport. As the inside jacket explains, "Schneider's efforts have helped bring about important measures to safeguard our planet, but there's still more to be done to get them implemented." That "S" on his chest doesn't represent his surname.
Schneider is so measured and balanced in his "sound science" advocacy, that in the new "Whinergate" emails he urges his NAS colleagues to admit Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory climate scientist Ben Santer to their exclusive society. "Can we please get that finally done next year!!" he doubly exclaimed.
You might recall the even-tempered Santer as the bloke from the original Climategate scandal that arose out of Britain's University of East Anglia, who told Climatic Research Unit director Phil Jones that he'd be tempted -- "very tempted" -- to "beat the crap out of" skeptical climatologist Pat Michaels. Santer, as lead author of the UN IPCC's 1995 second assessment report on the science, also admitted deleting statements that denied a human influence on climate change. This kind of behavior apparently has been established as common scientific procedure by "Contact Sport" practitioners -- better known as "The Fight Club" within the NAS.
No wonder why, as the Washington Times reported last week, this discredited bunch wants to punch back at skeptics. The Whinergate emails disclosed that one of their strategies of persuasion is to chip in and purchase a back-page ad in the New York Times that would challenge their critics. This presumably would get their mini-choir of fellow elitists singing from their hymnal -- but would totally miss the unconverted. Next up -- a double-page glossy spread in Audubon! And they wonder why their message isn't getting through.
Rock-solid science is built with a firm foundation of verifiable and repeatable tests, with trustworthy facts and figures as their sources. The Whinergate scientists employed fudged data and their personal agendas to belligerently promote a fabricated cause, amplified by their similarly unpopular anti-capitalist cohorts and ever-expanding government. Now they profess surprise at the growing resistance to their mission.
They still have not learned that all the money, media and muscle at their disposal have not produced sound science, or a victory. Tactics may provide a temporary advantage, but facts usually win, even though sometimes it takes a while.