Sectors of academia cling to denial in Climategate

Paul V. Sheridan of Dearborn, Mich., is a Cornell graduate with degrees in physics, mathematics and business, and is a nationally recognized automotive safety consultant.

By Paul Sheridan

Tompkins County will soon long for the good old days of "global warming." Earth is entering a cooling phase unrelated to carbon dioxide. But the fundraisers exposed by the United Nations Climategate have now admitted that these natural climate cycles have no positive correlation to human activity.

The farce that human CO2 drives climate was not just bad science; it was a conspiracy that preyed upon human emotions. The whistleblower release of documents exchanged by Dr. Phil Jones at the Climate Research Center of East Anglia University revealed a new low for academia. These global conspirators had indicted humanity on the basis of its CO2 output. The mainstream media remain equally sanctimonious, debasing taxpayer outrage as merely "polemical denials." But Climategate constituted criminal activity and threatens true environmentalism.

When discussing the claim that CO2 drove climate, we endured behavior rooted in serious character flaws or deep emotional problems. Scientific questions were rarely answered with honesty or civility. Previously, supporters of the Climategate conspirators touted them as having high ethical and intellectual status. My alma mater had continuously accredited the junk science of the United Nations, but refuses to issue a formal statement condemning Climategate. According to Cornell Professor Frank DiSalvo, "There's no doubt people know about it, and are chagrined by it." Ithaca Mayor Carolyn Peterson, who exploited this junk science to enact her Carbon Tax Resolution, also has not issued a statement on Climategate.
Competent climate scientists (once slandered as "Holocaust deniers") respond honestly and on-the-record. In stark contrast, alarmists refuse to submit to the scientific method, are antagonistic to honest peer review, and have derided relevant questions. This ethical divergence is well-established.
Last November, just before Climategate, I interviewed a Rutgers University professor; a close friend to Dr. Jones and American Geophysical Union member. He demands "global warming" research funding through carbon tax schemes, but would only talk off-the-record. Under that pretense this Rutgers official immediately resorted to slanders about "climate deniers." Why the anger? Read more.