The Bottom Line

Home » Politics » Flashback: Climategate disproved? Not so fast!

Flashback: Climategate disproved? Not so fast!


*Note: With the Climate Change rhetoric being pushed hard by the Obama administration as of late, the Bottom Line will once again be covering the topic. In preparation of this, we thought we’d post a previously written article about the Climategate scandal that was published on our old site. Stay tuned for more on the issue, but until then, “enjoy” the Liberal attempt to skew the debate.


If you read my last article on Global Warming, you will remember that the extremely illuminating and highly damaging Climategate Scandal has been “disproved”. In case you didn’t see this, or for some reason haven’t heard about this by now, here is an excerpt:

UPDATE: April 15th 2010: A new independent U.K. Panel has come out and said there is: “No evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it.” Another article claims: “The 14-member parliamentary committee said in its report it had found nothing to challenge the “scientific consensus” that global warming is occurring and influenced by human activity. It also declared that the scientific reputation of Phil Jones, the head of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), remains “intact.”

Oh well, that’s that. We can clearly see that Climategate has been disproven, and according to the independent panel, the scientists in question are free and clear of any wrong doing, and the science is still sound right?  Not so fast.

The articles said an “Independent Panel” cleared them of all wrong doing, but what exactly IS an “Independent Panel?” Princeton University defines Independent as:

Free from external control and constraint; “an independent mind”. “A series of independent judgments”; “fiercely independent individualism”; mugwump: a neutral or uncommitted person, not controlled by a party or interest group.

And the Free Dictionary Online defines Independent as:

Free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others; self-reliant: Not determined or influenced by someone or something else; not contingent:

This means that to be truly independent (or on an independent panel) one must be unattached to and uninfluenced by the subject they are studying. To my liberal friends out there, this means: They should have nothing to do with the topic in question.

With that being said, today I’d like to focus on two, and only two members of this independent panel. Now you might be thinking; only two? That’s not that bad…oh contraire, these two taint the whole process of an “independent panel.”

Let’s take a look at the first member, Dr. Kerry Emanuel. This man certainly isn’t biased is he? He certainly as no opinion on the topic; Here are a few excerpts from an article that this Professor of Meteorology wrote for the Boston Review in 2007:

“Projections based on climate models suggest that the globe will continue to warm another 3 to 7°F over the next century. This is similar to the temperature change one could experience by moving, say, from Boston to Philadelphia…But there are consequences of warming that we cannot take so lightly…  Meltwater from the surface of the Greenland ice sheet is making its way to the bottom of the ice, possibly allowing the ice to flow faster toward the sea…Were the entire Greenland ice cap to melt, sea level would increase by around 22 feet—flooding many coastal regions including much of southern Florida and lower Manhattan.” (1)

He points out how his: “own work has shown that hurricanes are responding to warming sea surface temperatures faster than we originally expected, especially in the North Atlantic, where the total power output by tropical cyclones has increased by around 60 percent since the 1970s. The 2005 hurricane season was the most active in the 150 years of records, corresponding to record warmth of the tropical Atlantic.” (1)

He then talks about the IPCC (One of the agencies proven to be lying about Global Warming later on):

While the American public has been misinformed by a media obsessed with sensational debate, climate scientists developed a way forward that helps them to compare notes and test one another’s ideas and also creates a valuable communication channel. Called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, it produces a detailed summary of the state of the science every four years, with the next one due out in February 2007. Although far from perfect, the IPCC involves serious climate scientists from many countries and has largely withstood political attack and influence. The IPCC reports are fairly candid about what we collectively know and where the uncertainties probably lie. (1)

The UK Telegraph points out that “Dr Kerry Emanuel is an outspoken advocate of man-made global warming.”(2)

Now what do all these quotes prove? Firstly they prove that before Climategate and this independent panel ever happened, Emanuel already believed in Global Warming, and that it could have “consequences we should not take lightly.” It also shows that he already had/has a favorable opinion of one of the groups (IPCC) feeding us the climate change lies. This man was certainly not objective or independent and should not have been on this panel, but he is not the only one.

Meet Lord Ron Oxburgh, the head of the “Independent Panel.” That’s right; I said head, its leader. He is probably the worst person to be on an independent panel on global warming, because not only is he extremely biased in agreement with it, but he also has a very personal interest in it, because he stands to make money off it. What is interesting to note, is that Lord Oxburgh used to be a Shell Oil chief, but left a while ago to pursue “Green Interests”. Let’s take a look at what he says about Global Warming from a BBC News report in 2004:

“In a frank interview, Ron Oxburgh told the Guardian newspaper that climate change made him “very worried for the planet”. He said a technology to trap harmful emissions, blamed by many scientists for climate change, must be developed. But he said he feared “the timescale might be impossible”. “No one can be comfortable at the prospect of continuing to pump out the amounts of carbon dioxide that we are at present,” said the Shell boss…”People are going to go on allowing this atmospheric carbon dioxide to build up, with consequences that we really can’t predict, but are probably not good.”(3)

BBC points out that: “His comments echo those of the UK government’s chief science adviser Sir David King, who declared in January that climate change was a far greater threat to the world than international terrorism, and challenged the US to do more to tackle greenhouse gas emissions.” Oxburgh himself has said on this topic: “You can’t slip a piece of paper between David King and me on this position.” (3)

To further show just how much he believes in Global warming, Oxburgh “has persuaded his wife and son to use bicycles and abandon the car “except for trips to the supermarket”. For those, he uses a diesel capable of 60 miles to the gallon.

“Domestically we all ride bicycles and use the car as little as we can,” he said. The family has also abandoned air travel for holidays…” He has even made his house mostly “green.” (4)

Oxburgh is so worried about a Global Warming catastrophe, that he believes “it is only through taxation, regulation and new technology that the world can have any hope of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” Oxburgh also said in an interview in 2007 “that the threat from global warming was so severe that “it may be that we shall need … regulations which impose very severe penalties on people who emit more than specified amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere”. (6) Before he left Shell, he said “When I leave I would like to go onto the board of a climate change charity. I would be campaigning for more responsible use of hydrocarbons.” (4)

The final nail in his coffin showing just how involved he is with supporting the Global Warming myth is that he “is also a director of GLOBE, the Global Legislators Organization for a Balanced Environment.” (5)

What does GLOBE do? “GLOBE may be too obscure to merit its own Wikipedia entry, but that belies its wealth and influence. It funds meetings for parliamentarians worldwide with an interest in climate change, and prior to the Copenhagen Summit, GLOBE issued guidelines for legislators.” What is also interesting is that Oxburgh failed to declare he was a director of this group (GLOBE lists Oxburgh as one of 23 key legislators.) (5)

The final evidence showing that Oxburgh is not independent and should not be on the panel is that he makes money off of Global Warming being “real.”

“Lord Oxburgh himself is linked to various commercial interests which make money from climate change, from wind farms to carbon trading.” (2)

The UK Times backs this up by giving us the names of those companies he is involved with. He is: “chairman of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and the wind energy company Falck Renewables.” (Organizations that depended on climate change being seen as an urgent problem.)(6)

Oxburgh himself has said that he believes “the need to tackle climate change will make capturing carbon from power plants “a worldwide industry of the same scale as the international oil industry today”. (6)

Now even though Global Warming is not real, Oxburgh will still make some money of off these investments, BUT we must realize how much more money he would make if Global Warming was this real gigantic catastrophe that he is making it out to be! In fact these “close links to businesses (that he has)…stand to make billions of pounds from low-carbon technology.” (6)

We can see just how unfit the head of the “independent panel” is to even be on this investigative group, because he is not at all independent from the subject, or outside influences. He is a firm believer that Global Warming could destroy the earth unless we start cutting emissions and investing in technologies he stands to make money from. We also see that another one of his panel compatriots (Emanuel) is also a firm Global Warming believer and his therefore not truly independent. I must also point out that the evidence used by Oxburgh and his panel to prove that East Anglia and others did nothing wrong, and got it right after all…came from the people who are in question! (2) Not to mention that the panel could not be truly independent, given that every single one of them presupposed the truth in Global warming, and none of them were unbiased, or at least skeptics able to balance it out.

On one final note, when the University of East Anglia (the people in question) found out who was leading the panel, they said this: “We are delighted that a renowned scientist of the standing of Lord Oxburgh has agreed to chair this very strong independent panel and await its findings with great interest. Colleagues in CRU have committed themselves to providing any support required by the panel.”(7)

Now I don’t know about you, but when a group being investigated for fraud and mass lying to the public, is “Delighted” that someone is leading an investigation against them…that gives me all the more reason NOT to trust the panel.

I hope that now that you have read all this information, you can see as I do, that Climategate was not truly debunked, but instead it is the debunkers who have become the discredited. Global Warming is a farce, and it has been made known to the world…let’s just hope the rest of the world finds out what I have just shown you.

Authors Note: I have only chosen to address these two men because they are the two most blatant offenders, and to cover the rest would most indubitably make this a much longer article than it already is…if you would like to see a complete list of the panel, go here:

Also if you would like to see a database of Climategate emails and documents; click here

Works Cited:

1. Boston Review: Jan/Feb 2007, Kerry Emanuel:

 2. The UK Telegraph, Christopher Booker, April 17th 2010:

 3. BBC News, June 17th, 2004:

 4. The UK Times, Jonathan Leake, Jan. 30th 2005:

 5. The Register, Andrew Orlowski, March 24th 2010:

 6. UK Times, Ben Webster, March 23 2010:

 7. University of East Anglia, March 22nd 2010:



1 Comment

  1. Hi there mates, fastidious piece of writing and fastidious urging commented here, I am really enjoying by

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Bottom Line Tweets

%d bloggers like this: