DO SMOKING GUNS CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING TOO?
Ann Coulter
As we now know (and by "we" I mean "everyone with access
to the Internet"), the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research
Unit (CRU) has been caught ferociously manipulating the data about the
Earth's temperature. Leaked e-mails from the "scientists" at
CRU show that, when talking among themselves, they forthrightly admit
to using a "trick" to "hide the decline" in the Earth's
temperature since 1960 -- as one e-mail says. Still another describes
their manipulation of the data thus: "[W]e can have a proper result,
but only by including a load of garbage!"
Am I just crazy from the heat or were they trying to deceive us? Global
warming cheerleaders in the media were quick to defend the scandalous
e-mails, explaining that, among scientists, the words "trick,"
"hide the decline" and "garbage" do not mean "trick,"
"hide the decline" and "garbage." These words actually
mean "onion soup..." (Boy, it must be great to be able to redefine
words right in the middle of a debate.) Also, of course, the defenders
said that the words needed to be placed "in context" -- I have
placed the words in context and it turns out what they mean is: gigantic
academic fraud. The leaked e-mail exchanges also show the vaunted
"scientists" engaging in a possibly criminal effort to delete
their own smoking-gun e-mails in response to a Freedom of Information
request. Next, the fanatics will be telling us that "among scientists,"
this behavior does not indicate knowledge of guilt. If I recall correctly,
their next move should be to fire the special prosecutor late Saturday
night. These e-mails aren't a tempest in a teapot. They are evidence of
pervasive fraud by a massively influential institution that has dominated
news coverage of global warming.
CRU was regularly cited as the leading authority on "global climate
analysis" -- including by the very news outlets that are burying
the current scandal, such as the New York Times and the Washington Post.
The CRU alone received more than $23 million in taxpayer funds for its
work on global warming. Having claimed to have collected the most complete
data on the Earth's temperature for the last half century, the CRU's summary
of that data was used by the UNs Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change for its 2007 report demanding that we adopt a
few modest lifestyle changes, such as abolishing modern technology, reverting
to hunter/gatherer status and taxing ourselves into servitude. But then
in the middle of the "Let's Cook the Books!" email scandal --
the CRU said that all its data on the Earth's temperature since 1960 had
been irretrievably "lost." (Although I suspect "overcooked"
might be a more apt term.)
The way this episode is unfolding, the environmentalists may be forced
to drop their phantom threat of global warming and go back to the phantom
threat of global cooling. Most disturbingly, the CRU-affiliated "scientists"
were caught red-handed conspiring to kill the careers and reputations
of scientists who dissented from the religion of global warming. Indignant
that scientific journals were publishing papers skeptical of global warming,
the cult members plotted to get editors ousted and the publications discredited.
This sabotage of global warming dissenters may be more galling than their
manipulation of the data. Until now, the global warming cult's sole argument
has been to demand that everyone shut up in response to the "scientific
consensus" that human activity was causing global warming. That's
their idea of a free and open debate.
It's always the same thing with primitive people -- voodoo practitioners,
rain dancers and liberals. In lieu of facts, debate and a weighing of
the evidence, religious fanatics respond to all counterarguments by invoking
a higher authority: the witch doctor, a "scientific consensus,"
"the Constitution" or "historians are agreed."
Liberals won't tell us why Congress passed a law outlawing incandescent
lightbulbs by 2014 -- a bill solemnly delivered to the president in a
Prius hybrid (making it the slowest-moving bill in U.S. history). Instead,
they tell us there's a "scientific consensus" that we have to
use fluorescent lightbulbs or we'll all die.
They won't tell us why Ten Commandments monuments must be stripped from
every public space in America. Instead, they tell us "the Constitution"
says so (according to the high priests who interpret it to mean things
the document doesn't remotely say).
They won't tell us what Sen. Joe McCarthy lied about. They say: Historians
are agreed that McCarthy was a liar. (These are the same historians who
also stated as fact that "few American Communists were spies"
-- until decrypted Soviet cables proved that the Communist Party was awash
with Soviet spies.)
This is precisely what liberals accuse Christians of doing, but which
Christians never do. We don't cite the Bible as authority -- and then
refuse to let anyone read it. We certainly don't claim to have "lost"
it, so you can't check for yourself. But that's exactly what the CRU has
done with its secret data allegedly showing a warming Earth. Also, biblical
data on the great flood and Noah's ark have held up remarkably well.
Even if the Earth were warming -- which apparently it is not -- the idea
that humans using energy-efficient lightbulbs would alter the temperature
of the globe is approximately as plausible as the Aztecs' belief that
they were required to wrench the beating heart out of living, breathing
humans in order to keep the sun on its path. Sadly, the "human sacrifice
deniers" lost the argument to Aztec CRU scientists, who explained
that there was a "scientific consensus" on the benefits of ritual
murder. But at least the Aztecs only slaughtered tens of thousands of
humans in the name of "climate change." The global warming cultists
want us all dead.
Ann Coulter is a syndicated columnist in the USA
|