The Deniers of Climategate

I just watch Senator Markey's (pronounced malarkey) defense of man made global warming on FOX News Sunday. It appears the deniers of climategate will use as a defense the voluminous supporting information from other sources as proof the earth is warming. I guess they feel that enough people will support their cause if they believe there is other scientific information to support the myth of man made global warming.

Good enough. At least they have shown their cards. The defense is so easily overcome. First, the specific data referenced in the Climategate emails was foundational to their cause. It was not a single finding that led to multiple additional findings. Instead, it was the basis that was used by other researchers as they conducted their own studies - which surprisingly enough, also found that mankind was causing potentially catastrophic warming of the planet. When you disprove the foundational keystone of a theory, the entire theory collapses. To say that we have other evidence is just smoke and mirrors.

We really should not be surprised that multiple researchers came to the same conclusion. It is a typical behavior I have seen many times in the business environment. The business analogy goes like this. A CEO is briefed on a new product and gets excited. He commissions his team to initiate project A to build or sell the new product. Business case investigation begins as each department identifies how they can bring shareholder value by implementing project A. Any fact not helpful to proving in project A is ignored. In the end, a compelling volume of "facts" are presented to the CEO - most of which are false, while the rest are exaggerated.

Project A is approved to proceed. At some point in the project life cycle, somebody identifies an issue with how Project A was presented and approved. Is project A stopped? No, instead, other so called facts that led to the approval of project A are updated (manipulated) to salvage the project and continue with implementation. In the end the truth comes out when Project A does not provide the expected level of success. The project is written off as sunk cost.

The same thing is now happening within the global warming research community. The CEO (United Nations) commissioned a study that was intended to prove how man is warming the planet. Dissenting views and facts were squelched. Data that did not lead to the desired outcome was ignored or manipulated. In the end (2007) a report several inches thick was presented back to the United Nations. Not surprisingly it concluded that man made global warming was true.

Now we find that in the case of man made global warming, one foundational finding was manipulated. True to the business analogy, supporters are turning to other "facts" to make their case. With evidence of outright fraud, are we really supposed to believe the rest of the findings are valid? I won't. I believe that most won't unless global warming is a tenant of their faith within the religion of political correctness.

My belief is that over the next few months, additional research findings contained in the 2007 report to the United Nations will also be found to lack the scientific rigor expected of such a study. One by one they will fall apart as independent investigations are conducted. In the end, man made global warming will be uncovered for the hoax it is, and people will go to jail.

Unfortunately, I doubt if the primary hoaxster, Al Gore, is one of those.