One day, the world will marvel at the environmental hysteria of our time, and the deeply damaging corruption of science in the cause of an alarmist cult.

That was Mark Steyn’s message from as long ago as 2006. Ten years later, the damage done to science and the level of hysteria have only risen, and risen like one hand over another going up a ladder.

If you control the discussion, you’re not obliged to answer anyone else’s questions, especially hostile questions.

For example, “Why do most global warming advocates begin their scare statistics with ‘since 1970’?”

As in, “since 1970” there’s been global surface warming of half a degree or so. Because from 1940 to 1970, temperatures fell. Now why would that be? Who knows? Maybe it was Hitler. Maybe world wars are good for the planet.



Al “I Invented The Internet” Gore shrugging off criticism.

As long as you can control the discussion–or at least control the illusion that you control the discussion–you can decide which questions are worthy of attention, which ones are hostile, and qhich ones are just clever ways of strengthening your case.

In other words, just because you present a hundred studies that all confirm the same biased conclusion, doesn’t mean the conclusion is any stronger. It’s just louder. That’s why loudness is the key, and hysteria is the default setting in the climate change crowd.

A couple years ago, an Oxford climate scientist was quoted saying the unspeakable: “many ‘climate skeptics’ are actually lukewarmers.” In other words, lukewarmers believe in AGW (anthropogenic global warming) but doubt catastrophic AGW. In response, the high priest of AGW, Michael Mann, branded the author “anti-science.”

This is because, argues Steyn, in Mann’s world “there are two teams – Scientists vs Deniers – and if you don’t root root root for the home team you must be with the other fellows’.” In other words, if you are hysterically supportive of the theory of AGW, or climate change, or weather weirding, or whatever it’s called this year, then you must be an evil fundamentalist Christian or an evil oil tycoon.

Within both the “Scientists” and “Deniers” camps, there is a wide spectrum of opinion, especially when it comes to public policy. Mann can’t look at it that way because, once you do, it’s obvious that he’s a real outlier. This is because extremism is by definition extreme–at the outer limit, on the fringe, abnormal.

So, the only way to make an extreme view seem normal, is by making it so well known and so impressive that it drowns out the actual normal range of views. It’s like the joke about asking an inner-city kid, “Where does milk come from?” He says, “From the corner store.” Masking the normal reality of farms and cows behind shops and bottled milk is how an extreme urban viewpoint becomes a new norm.

Advertisement - story continues below...

Likewise, shoving statistical hockey sticks and date ranges around just to establish a new “consensus” is how a hysterical extreme usurps normalcy. “Where does global warming come from?” Well… “It comes from humans (and their graphs)!”

In a climate of hysterical one-up-manship, like men telling more and more grandiose  “fishing stories,” the ability to spin more and more extreme yarns is an asset, not a defect.

For example, on Wednesday, the EPA’s highest-paid employee and a leading expert on climate change, John C. Beale, “was sentenced to 32 months in federal prison for lying to his bosses and saying he was a CIA spy working in Pakistan so he could avoid doing his real job.”

How surprised are you that the EPA’s “leading expert on climate change” is also a professional liar? To his credit, Beale said (ahem!) he was ashamed of his lies about working for the CIA, “a ruse that, according to court records, began in 2000 and continued until early this year.”

This was not a trick to get out of work early on Friday. This was a bald-faced lie that worked for 15 years. In other words, for the past fifteen years, the EPA has been getting its top advice from a complete con artist.

Beale pled guilty in September to bilking the government out of nearly $1 million in salary and other benefits over a decade.

“Why did I do this? Greed – simple greed – and I’m ashamed of that greed,” Beale told the court. He also said it was possible that he got a “rush” and a “sense of excitement” by telling people he was worked for the CIA. “It was something like an addiction,” he said.

Like fishermen making the great catch heavier each time they tell it, Beale couldn’t stop lying once he saw how lucrative it was. Beale’s success is stunning proof that the intellectual “climate” of EPA rewards deceit and waste. The explanation Beale offered for his false CIA story? “He wanted to puff up his own image,” said Sullivan.

Much like “Emailgate” showed how much Michael Mann wanted to “puff up” the AGW theory.

As Prosecutor Jim Smith out it, Beale’s crimes made him a “poster child for what is wrong with government.” Or as Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said, “This case highlights a massive problem with the EPA.”

He perpetrated his fraud largely by failing to show up at the EPA for months at a time, including one 18-month stretch starting in June 2011 when he did “absolutely no work,” as his lawyer acknowledged in a sentencing memo filed last week.

EPA inspector general Arthur Elkins, whose office investigated Beale’s case, said in a statement Wednesday that his office is “actively looking at the EPA’s sloppy internal controls and management actions that enabled Mr. Beale’s frauds to occur…Expect to see the results of more audits from us in the coming months.”

Ah, yes, because nothing works so well as letting a government agency audit itself, right? Or letting the climate-change scientific establishment define its own consensus.

To get more good news like this one, check out and LIKE our Facebook page: SourcesNews