The Cost of Climate Fraud

Well, when the entire farce that is man-made global warming began to unravel with haste upon the exposure of emails from the East Anglia Climate Research Unit showing clear evidence of data tampering and conspiracy, I figured that one of three things was going to happen: Either the so-called scientists in question and the enviro-socialist left would confront the revelations with facts, or they would insist that the e-mails were taken out of context, or they would just ignore them altogether and plod along as if nothing at all happened.

So far, I’ve seen everything but the “confrontation with facts” scenario. And, no, I don’t expect to see that particular tactic employed any time soon.

Ignoring ClimateGate, however, seems to be the order of the day recently. First, it was White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs saying that he doesn’t believe there’s a scientific basis for disputing the idea of man-made global warming. Then, it was the president’s insistence upon attending the climate change summit in Copenhagen. On Wednesday, to top it all off, we heard Sen. Barbara Boxer say that she didn’t consider this so much “ClimateGate” as it is “Email-Theft-Gate,” and maintain that she would like to pursue criminal charges against the whistleblower who leaked the East Anglia CRU e-mails. Finally, last night, there was a remarkable piece from the Associated Press. It starts like this:

With the world losing the battle against global warming so far, experts are warning that humans need to follow nature’s example: Adapt or die.

That means elevating buildings, making taller and stronger dams and seawalls, rerouting water systems, restricting certain developments, changing farming practices and ultimately moving people, plants and animals out of harm’s way.

Adapting to rising seas and higher temperatures is expected to be a big topic at the U.N. climate-change talks in Copenhagen next week, along with the projected cost — hundreds of billions of dollars, much of it going to countries that cannot afford it.

I actually laughed out loud at three in the morning. “Adapt or die.” Seriously? “[L]osing the battle against global warming.” It’s absolutely insane. There is no battle! There is no need to adapt! We’re not going to die from global warming, people! Good grief — the whole gosh-darned thing is a hoax!

Actually, it’s worse.

When officers and directors at a corporation induce investors to purchase securities through misrepresentations made about that corporation’s financial health, portraying through falsified financial statements and balance sheets that the firm is in better shape than it really is, it’s called securities fraud. Here, we’ve seen millions of jobs lost, entire industries go extinct, lower and middle class families struggling with increased gasoline and heating oil and energy costs, and trillions of dollars spent across the globe, all based on misrepresentations made that the Earth is warming, that the warming is deadly, that we’re responsible for it, and that we can stop it.

Yet many on the left continue to argue that ClimateGate is overblown. Really? The way I look at it, much of the trillions of dollars tied up in the “green” industry due to global warming alarmism came from data from East Anglia CRU, which showed that man was causing global warming. That data was actually data which was adjusted for variables in its collection. But the original, pre-adjustment data is now gone, as is all information as to how the adjustment was made. Therefore, other scientists are incapable of recreating the numbers (a hallmark of responsible science).

Meanwhile, existing climate models in place and used to predict a warm future are incapable of predicting the known past given past variables and such.

At the center of ClimateGate now, you have people who are suppressing evidence intentionally, hiding data, and actively blackballing anyone who dares ask for the ability to recreate the numbers. And it’s overblown?

Consider, from that same Associated Press article, the costs and lengths to which various nations, provinces, states and municipalities are incurring and going to protect against a theory proven to be artificially and fraudulently maintained on a precarious pile of junk science:

Cities, states and countries are scrambling to adapt or are at least talking about it and setting aside money for it. Some examples:

  • England is strengthening the Thames River flood control barrier at a cost of around half a billion dollars.
  • The Netherlands is making its crucial flood control system stronger.
  • California is redesigning the gates that move water around the agriculturally vital Sacramento River Delta so that they can work when the sea level rises dramatically there.
  • Boston elevated a sewage treatment plant to keep it from being flooded when sea level rises. New York City is looking at similar maneuvers for water plants.
  • Chicago has a program to promote rooftop vegetation and reflective roofs that absorb less heat. That could keep the temperature down and ease heat waves.
  • Engineers are installing “thermal siphons” along the oil pipeline in Alaska, which is built on permafrost that is thawing, to draw heat away from the ground.
  • Researchers are uprooting moisture-loving trees along British Columbia’s coastal rainforests and dropping their seedlings in the dry ponderosa pine forests of Idaho, where they are more likely to survive.
  • Singapore plans to cut its flood-prone areas in half by 2011 by widening and deepening drains and canals and completing a $226 million dam at the mouth of the city’s main river.
  • In Thailand, there are large-scale efforts to protect places from rising sea levels. Monks at one temple outside Bangkok had to raise the floor by more than 3 feet.
  • Desperately poor Bangladesh is spending more than $50 million on adaptation. It is trying to fend off the sea with flood control and buildings on stilts.

President Barack Obama and Congress are talking about $1.2 billion a year from the U.S. for international climate aid, which includes adaptation. The U.N. climate chief, Yvo de Boer, said $10 billion to $12 billion a year is needed from developed countries through 2012 to “kick-start” things. Then it will get even more expensive.

The World Bank estimates adaptation costs will total $75 billion to $100 billion a year over the next 40 years. The International Institute for Environment and Development, a London think tank, says that number is too low.

It may even be $200 billion a year or $300 billion a year, said Chris Hope, a business school professor at the University of Cambridge and part of the IIED study.

Nevertheless, Hope said failing to adapt would be even more expensive — perhaps $6 trillion a year on average over the next 200 years. Adaptation could cut that by about $2 trillion a year, he said.

As much as three-quarters of the spending will be needed in the developing world, experts say.

“Those are not the countries that caused the problem,” Hope said. “There’s a pretty strong moral case for us giving them assistance for the impacts that we’ve largely caused.”

“Failing to adapt would be even more expensive,” the experts say, relying upon experts who relied upon experts who relied upon experts who knowingly and intentionally falsified data in order to perpetuate a fraud in the face of reality.

The thing is, as alarming as the cost may be, it’s what’s buried behind the cost that is most troubling and telling. The last two paragraphs in the excerpt is the entire global warming agenda in a nutshell — it’s not about the environment, it’s about taking money from developed nations, and giving it to the developing ones. It’s wealth redistribution on a massive, global scale.

See, the massive, global redistribution of wealth isn’t something that people would get on board for without incentive. Rising sea levels, increased frequency of natural disasters, polar bears fighting to cling to shrinking ice floes . . . there’s the incentive. That’s the only way that socialism can operate: mask the agenda in something a little more superficially palatable — universal health care, cap-and-trade, the fight against global warming.

And that’s why the left has become so defensive about the exposed East Anglia CRU e-mails. It goes to the heart of their hard-earned facade, their most successful facade for socialism yet. Shoot, people are starting to see through health care reform here in America.

But global warming was different. Because of the falsified numbers and the help from Hollywood and folks like Al Gore, the prospect of man-made global warming was convincing enough for people to buy hybrid vehicles, purchase carbon credits, advocate the elimination of toilet paper, strangle the automotive industry and flush an entire state into the toilet through more stringent CAFE standards. These e-mails, and the punch to the gut that they delivered to the faux science community, mean everything.

Think, for a moment, of the scope of the fraud perpetrated on the world by these people. It’s not just limited to Boston elevating a sewage treatment plant, or London retrofitting flood control barriers. It goes right down to the cost of a gallon of gas, higher than it needs to be because of the environmentalist-created barriers to true energy independence, and the increase in grocery prices that result from higher transportation costs. It goes right down to your neighbor losing their job because the manufacturing plant in town moved its operations to India, where growth isn’t stifled for the sake of pollution standards meant to assuage a fake problem. It goes to the extra few bucks you pay for a plane ticket, the money you spend on a compact fluorescent light bulb, the pump-type bottle your favorite hairspray comes in. Think of how far we’ve gone with increasing costs on just about everything, all in order to be more conscious of our carbon footprint. And it’s all a fraud.

Of course, we absolutely must be responsible stewards of the planet. But there’s no need for the average American family to experience a $1,900 increase in energy costs because the president feels that such costs should “necessarily skyrocket” in order to force a decrease in consumption. The best way we can clean up our home here is to do so through the ingenuity and technological advances which come from unfettered growth. The money in the oil industry has allowed for clean extraction procedures. The money in coal has allowed for cleaner plants.

At the same time, however, heads must roll. Just as corporate officers face fines and jail time for securities fraud, these so-called scientists absolutely must pay the price for the misrepresentations knowingly made. We need hearings, and we need trials. And maybe, just for laughs, we can all figure out the carbon footprint for both.



  1. Boston Blackie says:

    Damn Jeff,
    I finally got that Gore imagine out of mind and you show it again.
    I just choked on my toast.
    Typical democRATS, shoot the messenger and ignore the truth of the message. Boxer wants to prosecute the "theft" of the emails. Weren't they actually released under England's freedom of info act?
    Why let facts get in the way of a good global con job. America is going to send billions to upgrade the world but the Army Corp of Engineers couldn't even prepare New Orleans for a hurricane that was forcasted to happen someday decades in advance.
    Funny how it is no longer called global warming, now it is climate change. I'll take the kind of climate change we had in Boston yesterday, 69 degrees, until next May.


    Standing ovation Jeff!

  3. D.A.Gust says:

    The money involved could very well be just a small portion of the overall cost.

    The loss of trust in the scientific comminuty could be the mother of all costs.

    Over the last century we have come to trust science. The reliable fact based scientific structure of the past has seemed to have been replaced with politically motivated opinion and subjectivity.

    Now, I fear the average person reading accounts of the silencing, mistreatment, lies, half-truths, and deceit could possibly conclude that all science fields have become just another faction, politicized and unreliable.

    I must admit that I find myself mentally toying with the idea of these "scientists" being sent for public flogging.

  4. Gail B says:

    Jeff, you said, "First, it was White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs saying that he doesn't believe there's a scientific basis for disputing the idea of man-made global warming."

    So, "doesn't believe there's a scientific basis for disputing the — what?! — IDEA of man-made global warming — the IDEA?! And, just WHOSE IDEA? Why, Al Gore's, of course. Mr. Opportunist himself!

    Now, if Gibbs had REALLY answered the question, he would have said, "There's insufficient proof of man-made global warming to dispute the emails that prove it's all a hoax!"

  5. TNelson says:

    The amount of energy required to raise the level of the ocean the .6 of an inch it has reportedly risen in the last 4 years either by melting glaciers or expansion due to warming is absolutely phenomenal. Scientists will never point that out…All scientific data has and always will point to the Sun as the source of global warming.
    So when are they going to construct the retractable tinted quarter space dome to go over the earth? If we could get every country to pitch in a few bucks, we'd have it paid for easily! Of course, India would have to defer payment…Problem solved!

  6. Gail B says:

    You asked for lawsuits–there are two already in progress. Someone from my political forum sent me this story by Jim O'Neill and posted today:

    The two lawsuits? An excerpt:

    "There are reportedly at least two lawsuits in the works against the East Anglian CRU.

    "The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) has sued NASA for failing to provide documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act, and for being involved with an “apparent and widespread intent to defraud at the highest levels of international climate science.” "

    The story is as entertaining as it is informative.

  7. Anonymous says:

    HELL YES! Heads should roll. Prosecute them for fraud!

  8. JUDGE JUDY says:

    If you can prosecute someone for placing a cadaver finger in some fast food chili, then surely you can prosecute a fraud scheme that would have cost trillions and forced an nation to change their standard of living.

  9. CHEERIO says:

    An intelligent Brit discussing the fraud of climate change.

Speak Your Mind