Is this a new Climategate?

  • Back in 2009, academics are UES broke criminal law by refusing legitimate FOI requests.
  • Now in 2015, NOAA climate extremists are breaking US law by refusing legitimate congressional requests.

The similarity is striking, but so also the difference. Back in 2009, it was a few climate “nerds” like me creating petitions and trying to stoke up interest. Now, it is highly professional politicians, with crushing scientific evidence of 18 years without warming, in a run up to a US election, who have have the bit between their teeth.
I remember Climategate – and I remember thinking it was all over even before it had really started. And then it just took off! And so I’ve not lightly dismissed the various other scams as they came along – but none got traction with the public – mainly because it was still only a few nerds pushing it.
But something is really different this time. This time the forums are filled to the brim, not only with those like me who understand the issue, but an even greater number who appear to be only just coming to grips with the shear scale and audacity of this scam. The Republicans have introduced a whole new audience to this scam.
Also, this “Gate” is very different in nature from what we sceptics have been used to, because it is no longer an issue on its own. Instead it is now tied up in a raft of actions including the notorious wiping of emails by Hilary Clinton, and the rule by executive decree by the US EPA (environmental agency), which the Republicans are skilfully putting together. So, at best this “NOAA-gate” as I’m sure someone will call it, is just another issue in their armoury. If the Republicans can run with it (which now looks certain with the NOAA refusal which plays straight into their hands), then they will use it. If however, it doesn’t look like it’s spilling the dirt – it’ll get sidelined as they focus elsewhere.
But more than likely this NOAA-gate will be more like an orchestra – at times the republicans will ask the string to play – but before they audience gets fed up – they’ll bring about a new melody on the woodwind – Then change the tune with some drums – before going back to the wind (scam).
For those in the US, it will sound like one harmonious onslaught on Obama changing smoothly from subject to subject to create hell for the Democrats across a raft of areas. But for us outside the US with a focus on climate, it will seem as if climate suddenly becomes important – then even before it reaches a conclusion – to our amazement, it will disappear from the news.
But like all music – they real climate will come at the end, and unless I’m very mistaken 🙂 there will be a climax.

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Is this a new Climategate?

  1. Mark Hodgson says:

    I consider myself to be vaguely on the left of politics, and so I am constantly bemused by the fact that I am an in agreement on the climate issue with right-leaning politicians (in both the UK and the USA) with whom I disagree on many different issues.
    My concern about the US Republicans is that they will use this issue for party political purposes (especially as the next Presidential election is already just about out of the starting blocks, with Republicans already throwing their hats into the ring to be their party’s next presidential candidate) rather than concentrating on what, for us sceptics, are the real issues here.
    On the positive side, at least in the US there are a number of politicians who are not unthinking followers of the eco-fascists. In the UK, there are precious few politicians (UKIP excepted) who are not fully signed up to this nonsense, so in the UK we have far less chance of seeing politicians – the only people with the power to break the eco-fascists’ grip on society – doing anything about all this.
    I fear that, for all the more sensible noises coming from the DECC under Amber Rudd these days without the Lib Dems calling the shots there, most Tories (with a few very honourable exceptions) are still signed up to the general drift, and are only rowing back at the higher levels of Government because they know that both the national debt and the ongoing deficit are crippling, and all the eco nonsense is adding enormously to the scale of that problem. Plus I suspect they’ve finally realised that there is a real danger of the lights going out in at least one winter before the next general election, and the Tories don’t want to be the party on whose watch that happens, as they’ll carry the can in the eyes of the electorate, even though the real culprit is Miliband and his disastrous and ridiculous Climate Change Act.

  2. rms says:

    RE “My concern about the US Republicans is that they will use this issue for party political purposes–of course they will. That’s what politicians do. Fortunately the US Founders wrote the Constitution deliberately to make it hard to do things. We can hope that eventually “the right thing to do” will emerge. Seems to be starting.

  3. wolsten says:

    I am in a similar position Mark. But now the lords, via a labour amendment, have rejected the removal of onshore wind subsidies, we are in a very strange place indeed. The tories have too much to worry about with tax credits to lose sleep over this one though.

  4. wolsten says:

    I doubt the Republicans will get much benefit from this one. Most people do not care tuppence about the climate scare otherwise they would have been up in arms a long time ago due to the costly taxes imposed. I do support the effort though, it is great to see the alarmists, particularly government funded ones on the back foot. Still not seen this one reported by the BBC ;-).

  5. Oswald Thake says:

    Nor will you, Wolsten, old bean. See it reported by the BBC, I mean.

  6. Scottish-Sceptic says:

    I’ve no doubt that people like Trump, if they had got into bed with wind, would now be amongst the most vocal proponents dishing out the dirt on us. As it is, by chance rather than any knowledge of the science, they are supporting our view – or at least they are against the climate nonsense, which should promote much higher standards in science.
    But what I always find maddening, is that the people who lose out most are the poor and elderly who pay far more of their income out in fuel costs and those who gain are the super rich with their huge country estates where they just get rent from these bird mincers.
    So, by rights the Socialists ought to be totally against wind and Tories should be the ones pushing it.

  7. Scottish-Sceptic says:

    It will be run for a US audience. So, there will be set piece question and answers intended to create news for that evening’s TV. It won’t make good reading and unless you are really interested in Climate, because it is made for political TV in the US, it will not be of interest to anyone outside the US.
    The benefit with Republic interest is that they’ve got the resources to make it an issue. The downside – is they have no interest making it an issue outside the US.

  8. wolsten says:

    Hence 😉 🙂
    I gave up on the BBC a long time ago in this respect, another public body that should be ashamed of itself. I have tried to get family and friends interested but most just think I am odd for not being in love with auntie.

  9. wolsten says:

    By rights I presume you mean logic, evidence, common sense, all of the above?

  10. catweazle666 says:

    “I’ve no doubt that people like Trump, if they had got into bed with wind”
    Which I doubt…
    Donald Trump’s defeat over windfarm welcomed by green campaigners
    Judges rule US billionaire had no grounds for accusing ministers of illegally agreeing to license windfarm close to his Aberdeenshire golf resort

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/05/donald-trump-defeat-wind-farm-aberdeen-green-campaigners

  11. Mark Hodgson says:

    I’m with you on the disgrace that the BBC has become – shameful that such a once proud organisation, tasked with, and proud of, its objectivity, should now be little more than a propaganda organ for the eco-fascists, willing to give prominence to every passing regurgitated press release from “green” pressure groups.
    By the way, I’ve just had a look at your site, Wolsten – I’ll keep dipping in and out from time to time as it looks like a useful source of stories I won’t find on the BBC!

  12. Mark Hodgson says:

    “But what I always find maddening, is that the people who lose out most are the poor and elderly who pay far more of their income out in fuel costs and those who gain are the super rich with their huge country estates where they just get rent from these bird mincers.
    So, by rights the Socialists ought to be totally against wind and Tories should be the ones pushing it.”
    Quite! And I still can’t understand why it isn’t so.

  13. Wilderness Voice says:

    Socialists view climate alarmism as their best vehicle to establish their world wide utopia. It doesn’t matter that it is based on lies, propaganda and censorship. With soulless characters such as these, the end justifies the means.

  14. Pingback: NOAA Idea of the Political Climate | contrary2belief

Comments are closed.