Does “ClimateGate” expose weird science or political propaganda?

By Byron Schlomach, Ph.D.
Goldwater Institute

Twenty years ago a biologist showed me a graph from a peer-reviewed scientific journal that showed an alarming increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Then I noticed the graph’s scale was logarithmic and made even small increases look exaggerated. I’ve been skeptical of the science behind global warming ever since.

Now there’s ClimateGate. Somebody hacked the University of East Anglia’s e-mail server in England and downloaded e-mails to and from scientists in the Climate Research Unit, perhaps the world’s premier climate research center. The messages show scientists engaged in politics over science. One damaging e-mail includes this remark:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

“Mike” is Michael Mann, made famous by the “hockey stick” temperature diagram Al Gore helped popularize. It first appeared in a UN report on global warming and purports to show that earth’s recent temperature is the highest in a thousand years, using tree ring data to reconstruct past temperatures. Mann apparently grafted in data from unrelated modern sources to get the desired result when ring data didn’t cooperate.

Add to this the recent confession that raw temperature data have long been destroyed. These data are the basis of the two main datasets used by the UN for its policy reports. Now nobody can actually check the methodology of the data that’s being used to dictate international policy.

Given the lack of reliable, replicable, scientific evidence of global warming, it calls into question the wisdom behind the Arizona Corporation Commission renewable energy standards that will cost Arizona utility customers billions in the coming years. The Commission should rely on more than questionable science before they strike a multi-billion dollar blow to Arizona’s already fragile economy. I’ve got plenty of raw data to back that up, by the way.

Byron Schlomach, Ph.D., is the director of the Goldwater Institute’s Center for Economic Prosperity.


  1. Antifederalist says

    I really do hope the exposure of the enviro wackos does put an end to BS like cafe standards, cap & trade, and the EPA. The left allies itself with lunatics like the Union of Concerned Scientists to use junk science to achieve the goal of regulating EVERY aspect of our lives. Also, it’s just idiotic to think that man can make the Earth’s environment static. The Earth has had multiple Ice Ages and multiple warming periods. We also know full well that if the Earth were any closer or farther from the sun, our temperatures would drastically rise or fall respectively. To think that Man can radically affect the environment on a global scale like the sun can is just laughable.

    The Left just wants to regulate and it will use any means necessary, including lying through their teeth to achieve their goals. They also don’t care WHAT they say to get what they want. In the `70’s they were warning about global cooling, now it’s global warming..oh! wait! I mean “Climate Change”. There’s no consistency on the Left except the desire to be little fascists and to tax everything into oblivion. They should all be shot for being tyrants…or at least disenfranchised.

    “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” — Thomas Jefferson

  2. I also am a Global Warming skeptic based on the science involved. However, I got involved in the field of alternate energy in the 70s when some scientists were concerned about the earth falling into another little ice age. Fads come and go.

    What has stayed constant is our need to free ourselves from reliance on foreign oil. This dependence has only gotten worse since 1973. That and general environmental concerns should be sufficient for us to pursue alternate sources of energy. Further, unsubsidized grid-tied, solar photovoltaic systems are already cost effective on a net-present-value basis over the expected lifetime of the solar modules. Subsidies are currently “needed” because most people don’t think in 30-yr terms. Solar PV is actually a way to bring down costs in the long run.

  3. Further, unsubsidized grid-tied, solar photovoltaic systems are already cost effective on a net-present-value basis over the expected lifetime of the solar modules. Subsidies are currently “needed” because most people don’t think in 30-yr terms. Solar PV is actually a way to bring down costs in the long run.
    What does the install invoice look like?
    And what if you don’t live anywhere near Phoenix?
    Only the well-to-do can afford the up-front cost. Unemployment is rising, proposed taxes are going to hit the entreprenurial Middle Class the hardest, so unemployment will continue to rise this coming year as small businesses scale back or close. This will cause a ripple effect through the economy as manufacturers flee the country for CHina and India and service businesses rack up losses as people drastically cut their spending to survive.
    And just about everyone who owns a home with a mortagage DOES think in thirty-year terms, so that’s not a valid excuse for why people aren’t going for it.
    It’s too much money for the return. Thirty years is past replacement life – a another big up front expense that will take 30 years to recover. Oh! We don’t live that long!

  4. Ben Kalafut destroys this nonsense by Schlomach here:

  5. Let us know when you guys convert your houses to solar. Leaders must lead by example. Solar is affordable! Install it, then.

  6. Rosco P Coltrane says

    I got 4.2KW installed on my 2000ft^2 home. It puts out a maximum 3.2KW and pays for only half of my electric bill at best. If you get them installed on your home, be sure you get an OUTPUT commitment from your vendor – don’t go by the panel ratings. Mounting angle and other parameters affect output.


    All this AGW theory is BS. The problem is that there is data for it and against it. Any data that appears to disprove a theory needs to be accounted for, not ignored or ridiculed. That’s the scientific way.

    It is obvious that this is a huge political ploy to extract a ton of tax money out of you and I while destroying our economy. And where will all that tax money go? What should the average temperature of the earth be, anyway?

  7. We have plenty of alternatives to imported oil that have already proven themselves to be cost effective with manageable environmental impact. Domestic oil in Alaska and off-shore, clean coal burned with scrubbing technology, natural gas, and nuclear reactors. The problem is that government regulations prevent them from being utilized.

    The reason solar power needs government subsidies to be adopted is not because people are too stupid to see the benefits. It is because, on a NPV basis including extra insurance costs and property loss risks, it is a bad value compared to currently available alternatives. If government regulations are reduced, those other alternatives will become even cheaper.

    Plus, releasing water vapor and carbon dioxide is fine. Just grow more plants to offset it – or let more grow naturally in response to a healthier atmosphere for them. We already have technology that eliminates sulfer dioxide and other dangerous poisons from most emissions.

Leave a Reply