It looks like the Salt Lake Tribune editorial staff got caught with their pants down around their ankles. Just days after the "Climategate" saga broke loose, interjecting renewed doubt into the popular catastrophist climate change dogma being peddled to the public, the Tribune has editorially declared the debate on climate change to be "over".
In an editorial column entitled, "Debate is over", in which they comment on a proposed climate change forum to be convened by Utah Governor Gary Herbert possibly on Earth Day in 2010, the Tribune proclaims that there cannot be any more debate on whether or not climate change is taking place, but only on how to cope with it (and, unspoken, how many trillions of public dollars to throw at the "solutions"). Here's an excerpt of the editorial:
A debate over climate change could be a very productive thing. Let's debate how best to deal with the effects of human-caused climate change. Let's debate how best to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, how to encourage energy conservation, how to make electric cars more affordable and electricity cleaner.
But arguing over whether the Earth's climate is warming and whether humans are the cause is useless. That debate is over. It continues only in the minds of doubters like Gov. Gary Herbert and Utah legislators like Rep. Mike Noel, R-Kanab.
If Herbert puts his "climate panel" to work trying to find credible scientists to stack up against the thousands who have been convinced for years of the reality and the dangers of global warming, he will be wasting time. Time we don't have before we begin taking serious steps to limit the poison spewed into our air by vehicles, coal-fired power plants and other polluting industries.
The Tribune then goes on to proclaim that 97 percent of "legitimate" climate scientists warn of warming and rising seas, continued polar ice melt, intense drought, floods, wildfires and severe weather caused by increasing carbon emissions. The Tribune describes skeptics as "climate change deniers", just as the Holocaust Industry likewise describes Holocaust revisionists as "deniers". And they preach catastrophism to promote urgency, using phrases like "spewing poisons" to scare the public into immediate and blind acceptance.
But it turns out many of these "97 percent" may have been caught massaging the data and cooking the books to promote climate change hysteria, on the eve of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to be held December 7-18 in Copenhagen. And yes, President Obama will be there to commit us to a 17 percent reduction in American emissions.
The first rumbling of a prospective Climategate came from a November 19th article in Der Spiegel, entitled "Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out". Although the planet's temperature curve allegedly rose sharply for almost 30 years, as global temperatures increased by an average of 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.25 degrees Fahrenheit) from the 1970s to the late 1990s, meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences said "At present, however, the warming is taking a break". Latif, one of Germany's best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. "There can be no argument about that," he says. "We have to face that fact." But even though the temperature standstill probably has no effect on the long-term warming trend, it does raise doubts about the predictive value of climate models, and it is also a political issue, one of the hottest issues in the scientific community.
Then it got hotter. In a Telegraph article entitled "Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?", James Delingpole reveals that the Climategate storm broke in full fury after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That) When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realize just why the Research Unit might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest "conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more".
The Washington Times also wrote about Climategate, but claims 160 mb of e-mails were obtained. The Times reported that Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and professor Michael E. Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Mr. Jones talked to Mr. Mann about the "trick of adding in the real temps to each series ... to hide the decline [in temperature]."
And now we get more news of data manipulation from New Zealand. In this Examiner article, Terry Hurlbut writes that climate scientists in New Zealand accused the foremost climate-research institution in New Zealand of data manipulation of the same type as the East Anglia Climatic Research Institute (CRU) is alleged to have done.The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition issued this paper saying that a graph published by the New Zealand National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) is not only wrong but is the result of painstaking and unjustified adjustment of raw temperature data covering the period from 1853 through 2008. At issue is a claim by NIWA that the average temperature over New Zealand declined from 1853 to 1909 and then began to rise, and has been rising ever since, at an average rate of +0.92 degree (Celsius) per century. See the applicable graphs below:
Tony Hake also makes the same claims in this other Examiner article.
Yep, the Salt Lake Tribune has blown it this time, just like the Chicago Daily Tribune blew the call on the 1948 election. They just don't know it yet.