If you have wondered WHY scientist, politicians, businessmen and governments would create the biggest, costliest hoax in the history of mankind. . . .Just "Follow the Money" and you can see for yourself. . .
------------------------------------------------------------
According to Bret Stephens at the Wall Street Journal:
. . . .Climategate, as readers of these pages know, concerns some of the world's leading climate scientists working in tandem to block freedom of information requests, blackball dissenting scientists, manipulate the peer-review process, and obscure, destroy or massage inconvenient temperature data—facts that were laid bare by last week's disclosure of thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, or CRU.
But the deeper question is why the scientists behaved this way to begin with, especially since the science behind man-made global warming is said to be firmly settled. To answer the question, it helps to turn the alarmists' follow-the-money methods right back at them.
Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s.
Al Gore wins the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize: Doing well by doing good?
Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?
Thus, the European Commission's most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that's not counting funds from the EU's member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA's, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. The states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal.
And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls "green stimulus"—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely.
Supply, as we know, creates its own demand. So for every additional billion in government-funded grants (or the tens of millions supplied by foundations like the Pew Charitable Trusts), universities, research institutes, advocacy groups and their various spin-offs and dependents have emerged from the woodwork to receive them.
--------------------------------------------------------
The dominos are beginning to fall one by one as details of the hoax is uncovered. . . .
--------------------------------------------------------
According to breitbart.com:
UK climate scientist to temporarily step down
LONDON (AP) - Britain's University of East Anglia says the director of its prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.
The university says Phil Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review into allegations that he worked to alter the way in which global temperature data was presented.
The allegations were made after more than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists were posted to the Web following the security breach last month.
The e-mails were seized upon by some skeptics of man-made climate change as proof that scientists are manipulating the data about its extent.
---------------------------------------------------------
According to moonbattery.com:
Climategate in four basic easy-to-understand elements that are indisputably proven by the East Anglie CRU emails.
1. Climate scienticians conspired to exclude temperature data that contradicted Global Warming from their "climate models."
2. The computer models were set up with a bias to show Global Warming regardless of the data that were put in.
3. Climate scienticians conspired to circumvent the peer review process by steering papers toward friendly reviewers, and plotting to remove skeptics from the peer review process.
4. Climate scienticians conspired to destroy data rather than share it with potential skeptics.
These so-called scientists behaved more like Scientology lawyers shredding incriminating documents than dispassionate, objective observers simply going where the facts led them.
---------------------------------------------------------
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CAM0VG0&show_article=1
To read the complete article got to:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/
