Climategate II: The coverup!

Professor Paul Falkowski

Would you believe Climategate II is here? More emails have been disclosed, but this time they are from a National Academies of Science listserv. Apparently, climate scientists affiliated with the U.S. National Academies of Science are none too happy about how Climategate has tarnished the reputation of climate scientists, and have turned public opinion against belief in Anthropogenic Global Warming. So upset are they, that they have been planning a public campaign to restore their damaged reputation.

Their plan was to get officials at the National Academies and other professional associations to produce studies that endorse existing climategate research, and otherwise cause people to disbelieve the skeptics’ argument.

Stephen Dinan broke this story in the Washington Times today, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute has independently obtained copies of the e-mails.

Read the copies of the emails for yourself in this PDF.

We’re still reading them, but they make you think, shouldn’t scientists be focusing on research, not on playing politics? Shouldn’t they just publish their sicentific findings and let the chips fall where they may?

Paul Falkowski (bio) kicks it off with the first email of the bunch:

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 22:14:13 -0500
Reply-To: NAS Section 63 Discussion
< Sender: NAS Section 63 Discussion
< From: Paul Falkowski

Dear All
We are facing an increasingly ill informed, hostile public
regarding two areas in which we have expertise:
Obviously one is climate change.
The second is energy.
They obviously are connected and the NAS has not done a good
job of selling the former to the latter.
Anyone looking at blogs on climate change thinks that the
"climategate' debacle and at the hacking of UEA has undermined the
scientific basis of climate change.
Combined with the snows in the Northeast, many people may
think the arguments about climate change are dead.
Very discouraging.
I would like to invite all members of the NAS (Ralph -
please send this to all sections) - to sign a declaration that
there is clear scientific evidence that burning of fossil fuels by
humans will will alter the climate. I want that to be on the back
page of the NYT and other newspapers in the US, sponsored by the
NAS- without any outside contributions - unless they sign a
contract making it clear that the NAS will not endorse any private companies.
For this - I offer $1000.00 of my personal funds- but I will
only donate these funds if 50 members of the NAS come with matching funds.
I will accept corporate sponsorship at a 5 to 1 ratio; but
only to be sure that the corporate funds sponsor the NAS. .
Second, we are facing an incredible misunderstanding of key
issues in science across the the spectrum of science.
We have no PBS program on science.
I want the NAS to begin discussions with PBS on developing a
national science program for prime time.
I want science to be on Thursdays at 8 PM - and repeated for
all schools across the nation - streaming.
I want us to find government and corporate sponsorship.
I think, from private conversations with producers in
Hollywood, there is an opportunity.
But, even if not, we need to develop a face on TV and Radio
that is real science -
My big conversation
I want the NAS to be a transformational agent in America -


H/T: GlobalWarming.org

Possibly related posts:

  1. How to destroy your reputation in three easy steps
  2. Biased reporting on Climategate? Say it ain’t so!
  3. Has the climategate email leaker been found?
  4. NPR’s media bias sees silver lining in Climategate
  5. Now get John Costella’s climategate email commentary in a PDF “book”

9 Responses to “Climategate II: The coverup!”

  1. Gorified says:

    Two types of scientist:

    1. A climate scientist: someone that studies climate.

    2. A climate change scientist: someone that defines the fact that climate changes as being unnatural, by that definition they expect climate to be constant. Weather is anecdotal when not supporting AGW but 100% proof if it does. A climate change scientist can tie absolutely any scenario to climate change even when completely opposite weather events take place at the same time.

  2. Tel says:

    I would say Paul Falkowski is more than welcome to put his own private money into a political campaign if that’s what he wishes to do. He should of course rightly disclose where the funding of this campaign is coming from (as with any political contribution).

    I strongly suspect that Paul will discover that his fellow climate researchers are substantially more reluctant to hand over their pocket money as compared to handing over taxpayer’s money for political campaigns.

  3. IW LOCAL 03 says:

    They need to leave the children out of it. It better not be streaming in my school.

  4. jrr canada says:

    Is it possible this “scientist” does not understand the basic scientific method? Never mind yet another public relations campaign to convince us dummies, how about we see some science in return for our tax dollars.Show me the evidence that makes them so sure of their belief, like all the data, the entire massaging of said data,the rational for these massages, and the means by which their hypothesis can be tested. That is how I can be convinced.Not by appeals to authorities and insinuation that all who ask for evidence are stupid.

  5. Judas Priest says:

    Interesting to see that he’s already contacted Leftists in the reliable Hollywood contingent. I do wonder what kind of nonsense they’re brewing for our kids.

    Want to stop this? Send info on Climategate to everyone you know. Work hard to get Conservatives in power this November.

  6. cloud10 says:

    I liked the Stephen Schneider comment :

    —– Forwarded Message —–
    From: “Stephen H Schneider” <XXX@XXXXXXXX.XXX
    Sent: Monday, March 1, 2010 2:39:37 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
    Subject: Re: [FOR_SECTION_63] Section 63 Action Agenda Reconsidered

    "Please don't make me miss yet another prediction!@#$% I have to live with cooling to warming "flipflop" every day, phony as that frame is given the history in Chapter 1 of my book."

  7. Tom Roe says:

    Interesting as a demonstration of what we have always claimed i.e. there’s an orchestrated political campaign behind climate change science. The emails answer the question “why would all of the scientists say the same thing” better than a detailed explanation that they do not. And to echo an earlier point the idiots babble about a lack of snow in Vancouver but dismiss record snow cover in the lower 48 and have the nerve to point out that weather isn’t climate. We use weather as satire to make exactley this claim because the alarmists have been abusing weather for years. I will note the dredging up of Joe McCarthy by the reprehensible Stephen Scnieder of Stanford. This is the line of attack that we can expect when congressional hearings begin. McCarthyism is a very complicated and misunderstood subject here in the USA. On the Left it is both a shield and a sword carefully crafted by the world’s most sophisticated myth creation machine. On the Right it is treated as a painful lesson in how not to handle a winning issue. McCarthy started out right about the lack of proper security under the Roosevelt/Truman administrations and ended badly as a wild tale spinning drunk. The list of 17 is meant to evoke the Hollywood 10 which had nothing much to do with Senator McCarthy since it was driven by the HUAC out of The House. The McCarthy spector more than anything else probably explains the reluctance of mainstream Republican’s to engage in the climate debate. That Dr. Scnieder advocates it to his colleages tells us much about what has been driving his “science” these many years.

  8. Squidly says:

    I think the most important line in that whole email is that last one (bold is mine):

    I want the NAS to be a transformational agent in America

    This is a HUGE red flag for me. Paul Falkowski is a “progressive”. Make no mistake about this. This one sentence tells me loud and clear, that this guy is in no way concerned about the “science”. He is concerned with, and only with, contributing to and the continuation of, the “progressive movement”.

    Ask yourself, what the hell is a “transformational agent” ??
    Ask yourself, what does a “transformational agent” have to do with science?

    Then, look back that the rest of the email and pick out the number of times he targets media and children.

    This is the kind of scary sh$#t that needs to be stopped!!! … Warning! … Stop this now or suffer from it later!

This website is for sale for $10,000. Contact us if interested.