Hacked Emails Show Climate Change Scientists Committing Fraud

But ... why make up climate change? Unless academics generally believe it to be really happening, how can they possibly gain from fabrication and scare mongering?

If we're mistrusting research based on the financial clout of the companies backing it surely oil companies are the ones with the most money muscle?

But ... why make up climate change? Unless academics generally believe it to be really happening, how can they possibly gain from fabrication and scare mongering?

But ... why make up climate change? Unless academics generally believe it to be really happening, how can they possibly gain from fabrication and scare mongering?

But ... why make up climate change? Unless academics generally believe it to be really happening, how can they possibly gain from fabrication and scare mongering?

Rather a lot of extrapolation for your last sentence there. If true, this shows one group of climate scientists has been carrying out academic fraud, and hence there data is invalid. Nothing more. Fraudulent data does show up occasionally - that's inevitable, and that's why "consensus" matters.

Coming to the conclusion "Global warming is fraud" based on the fact(?) that one set of data is fraudulent is ridiculous from a scientific point of view. There's all the data from other group out there which would have to be fraudulent before you can even get to "there is no evidence for global warming".



The Wall Street Journal link is a reasonable source, and does appear to refer to the posted e-mail. The other two links in the OP are nowhere near unbiased enough to be considered credible sources. The BBC link merely states the hack occurred - nothing about the content of the e-mails, so it isn't a useful source. I'd prefer a look at the e-mail content by a more reputable source.

Well actually the insurance industry (which is the one that seeks to gain the most from climate change, especially if it's all false) is worth a cool $1tr more per year than the Oil and Gas industries combined, but I don't think that is what people are saying specifically, anyway. It doesn't have to be a massive, shady, supranational corporation or government department, just that most people will say things that their paymasters like to hear. Not always, of course, but one cannot ignore it.

The thing is, if the scientists are supposedly coming up with what their 'paymasters' want, then this implies the government want us to think there's global warming as part of some huge conspiracy.

However, I've never seen anyone actually explain why the government would want us to believe in it. There's occasional airy references to 'green taxes' but even if these were extraordinarily lucrative (which is unlikely, as they're designed to replace the traditional income tax etc.) weighing it up it doesn't make sense to me.

For starters, moving to a low carbon economy away from consumerism would be bad for GDP surely? Plus, the international plan that's being drawn up involves Western nations giving huge amounts of money to developing countries to help them clean up their emissions. It seems a little odd that Western governments would construct a conspiracy on a ridiculous scale in order to give lots of money to poorer countries.

Also considering that green measures are hugely politically unpopular it doesn't make sense from that perspective either. I actually think the reason we've been delayed so long in tackling climate change is the government don't know how to sell it to the people without losing a ton of votes.

I'm not necessarily asking you to defend the viewpoint, but can anyone who plucks 'it's all a government conspiracy' out of the air please explain in detail why they would construct such an extraordinarily elaborate hoax? (assuming such a hoax is even possible)

A global tax, Keeping down the third world, ceasing land, decreasing standard of living. to name a few

I think you misinterpreted what I was saying. My whole point is that it's not a big government conspiracy, it's just a group of people looking out for themselves. There's no big orchestrator in Israel working it all out, but there are numerous think tanks out there that agree with global warming. Whatever their initial reasons for being set up (very possibly a genuine concern for the environment), they can't turn around now and say they were wrong, because they'd all lose their jobs. .

people will say things that their paymasters like to hear

There are also a lot of people who stand to gain a lot financially by perpetuating the hysteria. Al Gore, for example, has made millions from fear-mongering.

On the much more common hand, there are companies who stand to avoid losing much more money by promoting the conspiracy-theorist view of global-warming scientists.