In Watermelons, The Green Movement’s True Colors, British journalist/blogger James Delingpole promises to show that the man-made global warming is a fraud, one that has already cost billions of dollars and is a clear and present danger to our liberty and democratic traditions — and, ironically, to the environment itself.
He largely accomplishes this task and, for the most part, does so without sounding hysterical or radical. This alone would recommend this book to all who care about the environment, the human condition and the foundations of our way of life.
Delingpole was among the leading journalists who reported the Climategate scandal, in which he analyzed e-mails among leading climate scientists that had been hacked and posted on the web. What he discovered was a pattern of purposeful and coordinated efforts to:
- Manipulate the data supporting the claims of a sudden and dangerous increase in the earth’s temperature;
- Not disclose private doubts about whether the world was actually heating up;
- Suppress evidence that contradicted the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW);
- Disguise the facts around the Medieval Warm Period, when the earth was warmer that it is today;
- Suppress opposition by squeezing dissenting scientists out of the peer review process.
Normally, disclosure of fraudulent behavior on this scale would throw the proponents of any position into disrepute and spell the end of their political power. Not so with the advocates of global warming.
The reason: Global warming is not about science, but about politics — that is, about expanding the power of elites using the coercive instruments of government to control the lives of people everywhere. Just as the governing class embraces ineffective Keynesian stimulus spending to justify expansion of government, they now extol AGW as the basis for increasing their power to rule over the rest of us.
I remember that in the 1970s, “scientists” had used computer models to “prove” that the increase in industrial activity was about to trigger another ice age. The villains and solutions were the same as with global warming: Economic growth, rising living standards, capitalism and increased economic activity were going to destroy the planet. Then, as now, reduction in the use of fossil fuels, de facto restrictions on the use of automobiles, higher taxes and forced reductions in living standards were the recommended policy responses.
What makes AGW different is that the alleged pollutant is carbon dioxide — an odorless, colorless gas that is the basis of all life and human activity. Regulation of CO2 is the gateway for those who control government to regulate all economic and most human activity.
With the stakes this high, it should not be surprising that those who seek power have simply ignored the fraud and continue to press forward with their agenda to regulate “carbon” emissions. Note: This language too is part of the fraud. The emissions they seek to regulate are not dirty, sooty carbon, but carbon dioxide, that harmless gas that we exhale with every breadth.
Delingpole shows that science, itself, has been corrupted by tens of millions of dollars that governments all over the world provide in grants to scientists whose research supports global warming. “Post Normal Science” has become the new ethical standard for climate scientists. As the late Stephen Schneider, Stanford University Professor who had been one of the leading advocates of the dangers of global cooling in the 1970s, and then, as the lead author for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was one of the leading advocates of global warming, explained in an interview with Discover magazine:
And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means both.
There you have it. In the name of the greater good, scientists must be political advocates otherwise they are not being effective. The detached honesty that is the cornerstone of the scientific method? A mere hope.
Only a few courageous scientists have spoken out publicly against this corruption. Among them is Patrick Moore, the Canadian co-founder of Greenpeace who resigned in 1986 because the organization had “abandoned scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas.”