The Cornered Rats of Climate Change

By Marita Noon
Thursday, February 23, 2012

Public confidence in scientific “consensus” regarding the theory of manmade climate change is threatening the believing scientists’ confidence. While polls show that taking action to fight climate change is off the radar of most Americans, the behavior of the theory’s advocates is even more telling. They are behaving like "cornered rats"—taking extreme actions to protect their turf.

On February 23, European Union officials are expected to vote on a draft law would assign a higher carbon-emissions value to bitumen-derived fuels, compared to more conventional crudes. The European Commission has proposed a Fuel Quality Directive that, if passed, will exclude fuel derived from Canada’s oil sands from European use. The premise is that the production of the oil in question produces more carbon emissions than conventional oil.

While virtually none of the bitumen-derived fuels are currently shipped to Europe, supporters of the manmade climate change viewpoint have been using the pending vote in attempt to get the issue back on the public’s horizon.

On February 21, two days before the scheduled vote, a half-page ad was placed in the Financial Times. The ad’s large print states: “Eight Nobel Peace Laureates—including Archbishop Desmond Tutu—want to keep dirty oil out of Europe. Support the European Commission’s Fuel Quality Directive.” The expensive ad then features a letter that the Nobel Laureates sent to “European Heads of State” in which they say, among other things: “Tar sands development is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, and threatens the health of the planet. As the tar sands have contributed to rising emissions, Canada recently stepped away from the Kyoto Protocol. Europe must not follow in Canada’s footsteps.” Therein lies the true purpose of the ad.

The original letter is on stationary from the “Nobel Women’s Initiative” whose olive-branch logo includes this statement: “advocating for peace, justice, and equality.” The letterhead lists Laureates from many developing and/or under-developed countries. As I have previously posited, the Europeans’ support for the wealth-transferring Kyoto Protocol is that it would “equalize” energy costs between resource-rich North America and dependent Europe. The Kyoto Protocol would penalize the “wealthy” countries and financially reward the under-developed.

The expensive ad seems to have been purchased out of fear that the “equalizing” Kyoto Protocol may be dropped by Europe—as it has been by Canada.

It is, additionally, interesting to note that the Laureates mentioned in the ad are not Laureates in physics, chemistry, physiology, medicine, or even economic sciences—who might have some unique insight toward climate issues. They are Nobel “Peace” Laureates.

The day before the Financial Times carried the “keep dirty oil out of Europe” ad, a story broke citing water scientist and climate analyst Peter Gleick’s admission that his “judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts—often anonymous, well-funded and coordinated—to attack climate science.” He apologized for his hoax that “tricked” The Heartland Institute into releasing confidential documents. Gleick, who has been active in defending the manmade climate change view, used a false name in his ruse. He acknowledges that his actions were the result of “a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics.”

A UK Guardian news report about Gleick’s admission stated that his behavior “was seen by some as crossing a new line in the increasingly vitriolic debate.” In the New York Times, journalist Andrew Revkin describes what Gleick did as “an act that leaves his reputation in ruins.”

What would cause these two well-reputed sources to go to such extremes—expensive advertising and reputation-ruining acts—to defend their manmade climate change positions? The rat is cornered.

Anyone who follows the climate change debate knows that the Heartland Institute gives voice to scientists who do not ascribe to the theory of human-caused climate change. Their purpose is well known, and their strategies should not be a surprise. True scientists would welcome the debate—not seek to squash it. Gleick’s actions in tricking the Heartland Institute were aimed at discrediting it. If the science on the warmer’s side were solid, they wouldn’t need to resort to underhanded actions. But as more evidence, that began with the “Climategate” e-mails, comes out that shows that dissenters were silenced and that the predictions are being proven false, the scared promoters are taking extreme actions to protect their turf.

While Gleick’s ruse supposedly exposed Heartland’s “skeptic” funding, their budget is a drop in the bucket compared to the massive amounts of money spent in support of the manmade climate change position.

Years of steady funding in support of manmade climate change is being threatened. The cornered rats are taking extreme actions to protect their investment.