Richard Black, in his weekly BBC propaganda column, disgracefully suggests that those who won’t swallow climate change lies are linked to the white supremacists Stormfront. He argues that those who have advocated massive global warming taxes such as Stephen Schneider – who died this week – have been subjected to unwarranted abuse and are working under a constant barrage of nasty threats from sceptics. He doesn’t spell it out, but the implication is very clear; those who deny climate change are immoderate, right-wing thugs.
I challenge Richard, therefore, to write something equally as trenchant about warmists in the context of the tale of obfuscation, brick-walling and sheer bloody minded obstruction that met Australian scientists Jennifer Marohasy and John Abbot when Mr Abbot approached the Met Office in the UK under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain the data that underpinned the notorious hockey-stick. This is their conclusion:
This case study provides evidence that there is a culture of antagonism towards anyone who may wish to make independent appraisals of information relating to climate change and particularly if it relates to variations in global temperatures and greenhouse gas emissions. This is shown through both the CRU emails and the approach to Mr Holland’s request to the Met Office. The reluctance to comply with the Fol legislation does not result from bureaucratic misunderstanding of relatively recently enacted legislation. Instead it stems from an antagonism by institutional climate scientists towards those who may wish to independently examine evidence for climate change and its causes. The dangers revealed lie both in operating an effective Fol system, and openness and transparency in an area of immense scientific importance.
It’s a long read, but I urge you to persevere; it illustrates that to warmists, there is nothing they will not do to cover up shortcomings in their data. Chances of Mr Black covering this to balance his outpouring against sceptics? Don’t hold your breath. After all, to him, the likes of Marohasy and Abbot are something you find under your shoe.
PS. Richard, the paper containing the information is not published on the sceptic blogs you often sneer about (and occasionally threaten to sue)from your BBC ivory tower. It’s in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Law and Management.