James Delingpole is busier than ever; on news channels, opinion columns and environmental blogs. He is a Global warming skeptic or a “self righteous, deluded conservative” as his counterparts call him. Delingpole’s blog has had a surge in visitors the past week owing to his novelty to the journalistic lexicon, Climategate, the scandal that threatens to denigrate the global warming claims altogether and the associated academia with it.
The Climategate controversy unfolded with the leak of emails exchanged between Climatologists of the Climate Research Unit (CRU), University of East Anglia. These were hacked and posted at the Air Vent blog. The academicians at the centre of the broil were shown to have indulged in illicit manipulation of the data. There were clear instances of specific deletion that weakened alarming GW claims, and colluded purging of dissenting scientists from the body. These apparent dissenting scientists were pivotal to the peer review process of CRU’s findings and research. According to an analysis by The Guardian, the vast majority of the emails related to four climatologists: Phil Jones, the head of the CRU; Tim Osborn, a climate modeller; Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research; and Michael E. Mann of Pennsylvania State University (PSU), one of the originators of the graph of temperature trends dubbed the “hockey stick graph”.
IPCC’ 1995 report endorsed the “hockey stick” curve paraphrasing the whole finding as “a discernable human influence on global climate”, which in the existing circumstances seems ludicrous. The panel’s ensuing climatic claims and their magnitude drew dissension from various scientific communities. Its claim of the Himalayan glaciers vitiating against the rising temperatures by 2035, was questioned by the reports of Indian Glaciologists (which Rajendra Pachauri, Chief of IPCC, spurned as a “Voodoo Science”). They reproached the IPCC report as premature and shallow. What is unsettling is that IPCC serves as a direct advisory to the United Nations. It is unbecoming for a cardinal environmental organization to be at the centre of such controversies.
The immediate fallout of the Watergate crisis would be journalistic intimidation of the climate alarmists, media scrutiny of the concealed CRU literature and a shift in opinion demographics. 59 percent of the United Kingdom no longer believes in anthropogenic global warming, while in Germany the figure is around 60 percent. Such public derision may comprehensively debase the environmental research.
Is Anthropogenic Global Warming as serious as it purports to be? The human Carbon dioxide contribution is a mere 2 percent and many believe that heating of earth is an unavoidable temperature cycle. Environmentalists need to bolster the trust of the populace and sponsoring political regimes before this scientific edifice is decimated.
[Image courtesy: http://www.flickr.com/photos/victius/3929536353/]