|
November 2009
from
GlobalResearch Website
Thousands of hacked emails
between climate scientists
were posted on the web this
week.
The emails reveal attempts by
the climate science "mafia"
to "trick" data and muscle out
opposing peer review publications.
from
BokBluster Website
See all related data and Emails
at
"East
Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit - Searchable"
Global Warming On Trial
US Senator Inhofe Calls For Investigation Of UN
IPCC
Climate change alarmists engaged
in desperate whitewash, but scandal is not going away
by Paul Joseph Watson
November 24, 2009
from
GlobalResearchWebsite
In response to the astounding revelations arising out of the hacked
CRU emails, Senator Jim Inhofe has stated that unless
something is done within the next seven days, he will lead the call
for a rigorous investigation into mounting evidence that top climate
scientists conspired to manipulate data to hide evidence of global
cooling while engaging in academic witch hunts to eliminate
scientists skeptical of man-made climate change.
Speaking on the Americas Morning Show earlier today, Inhofe,
Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee, said the new revelations proved what he has been
warning about for over four years, that politicians and bias-driven
climate scientists affiliated with the UN IPCC have been
fraudulently "cooking the science" to conform to their agenda.
"If nothing happens in the next
seven days when we go back into session a week from today that
would change this situation, I will call for an investigation,"
said Inhofe. "Cause this thing is serious, you think about the
literally millions of dollars that have been thrown away on some
of this stuff that they came out with."
Asked what he would call for an
investigation of, Inhofe responded, "On the IPCC and on the United
Nations on the way that they cooked the science to make this thing
look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we
knew it was not."
Meanwhile, even some pro-man made global warming advocates have
conceded that an investigation is necessary.
Bob Ward, director of policy and communications at the Grantham
Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the
London School of Economics, told the London Guardian that only a
rigorous investigation could clear the names of those accused of
manipulating the data, admitting that the emails "created the
impression of impropriety," which is a lot further than most have
gone in accepting the damning nature of the hacked data.
Indeed, the British Met Office performed the equivalent of a child
sticking his fingers in his ears by merely attempting to dismiss the
emails altogether, without even explaining what was meant when
scientists at CRU talked about pulling "tricks" to "hide the
decline" in temperatures.
A spokesman at the Met Office, which jointly produces global
temperature datasets with the Climate Research Unit, said there was
no need for an inquiry.
"If you look at the emails, there
isn't any evidence that the data was falsified and there's no
evidence that climate change is a hoax. It's a shame that some
of the skeptics have had to take this rather shallow attempt to
discredit robust science undertaken by some of the world's most
respected scientists.
The bottom line is
that temperatures continue to rise and humans are responsible
for it. We have every confidence in the science and the various
datasets we use. The peer-review process is as robust as it
could possibly be. It's no surprise, with the Copenhagen talks
just days away, that this has happened now."
As James Delingpole of the
Telegraph highlights, alarmists are not going to be effected by the
scandal, because they will allow nothing whatsoever to corrupt their
religious belief system.
"They've made up their minds and no
quantity of contrary evidence, however devastating, is going to
shake their considered position of "Nyah nyah nyah. Got my
fingers in my ears. Not listening. The world IS warming and it's
man's fault. Must tax carbon now…."
However, there seems little doubt that
this bombshell will go a long way to derailing, or at least delaying
the agenda for a global carbon tax that will be collected by the
very same elitists aggressively pushing the fraud of global warming.
Climate Change
This is The Worst Scientific Scandal of Our
Generation
by Prof. Christopher
Booker
November 28, 2009
from
GlobalResearchWebsite
Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be
allowed to get away with a whitewash regarding statistics for global
warming.
A week after my colleague James Delingpole, on his Telegraph
blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed
by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic
Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across
the internet more than nine million times.
But in all these acres of electronic
coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of
documents has largely been missed.
The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has
expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the
documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of
academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are
looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years
been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global
warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the
heart of
the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of
the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports.
Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office,
which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his
global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of
temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely - not least
for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic
levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.
Dr Jones is also a key part of the
closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible
for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael
Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate
history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline,
global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in
recorded history.
Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to
eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when
temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the
central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.
Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the
"hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an
expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly
heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling
themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as
they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire
statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.
The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a
cast list of the IPCC's scientific elite, including not just the
"Hockey Team", such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU
colleague Keith Briffa, but,
-
Ben Santer, responsible for a
highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC's
1995 report
-
Kevin Trenberth, who similarly
controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over
hurricane activity
-
Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to
Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of
surface temperature data is second in importance only to
that of the CRU itself
There are three threads in particular in
the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed
observers across the world.
Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put
together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and
Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That), is the highly disturbing
series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for
years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid
releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.
They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the
background data on which their findings and temperature records were
based.
This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's
refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its
hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer
in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world
had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in
which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which,
when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request,
is a criminal offence.
But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic
refusal to release their data is - what is it that these scientists
seem so anxious to hide?
The second and most shocking revelation
of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to
manipulate data through their tortuous computer programs, always to
point in only the one desired direction - to lower past temperatures
and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the
impression of an accelerated warming.
This comes up so often (not least in the
documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that
it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story.
This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS
temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to
revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come
to light from Australia and New Zealand.
In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists
to compare the official temperature record with the original data on
which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the
same trick has been played - to turn an essentially flat temperature
chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in
each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of
the CRU.
What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the
picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the
complex computer programs they had devised to contort their data in
the approved direction, more than once expressing their own
desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results.
The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way
in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert
questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious
methods - not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by
discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to
publish their critics' work.
It seems they are prepared to stop at
nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by
ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the
pages of IPCC reports.
Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward
Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating
Steve McIntyre's demolition of the "hockey stick", he excoriated the
way in which this same "tightly knit group" of academics seemed only
too keen to collaborate with each other and to "peer review" each
other's papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC
reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may
hang.
In light of the latest revelations, it
now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to
uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific
enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr
Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred
from any further participation in the IPCC.
Even our own George Monbiot, horrified
at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has
been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to
step down as head of the CRU.
The former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his
new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, rightly called
for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skullduggery
revealed by the CRU leaks. But the inquiry mooted on Friday,
possibly to be chaired by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society
- itself long a shameless propagandist for the warmist cause
- is far from being what Lord Lawson had in mind.
Our hopelessly compromised scientific
establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what
has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.
Climategate
The Whitewash Begins
by James Delingpole
November 28, 2009
from
GlobalResearchWebsite
The Telegraph
Friday, November 27th 2009, 1:36 PM EST
Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
Breaking news from the splendid Bishop Hill. It seems the AGW
establishment has launched an urgent damage limitation exercise in
order to whitewash the Climategate scandal in time for Copenhagen.
Here's the (so far unconfirmed) story:
-
Lord Rees (Royal Society) to be
asked by UEA to investigate CRU leak.
-
Foreign Office and government
leaning heavily on UEA to keep a lid on everything lest it
destabilizes Copenhagen.
-
CRU asked to prepare data for a
pre-emptive release in past couple of days but trouble
reconciling issues between data bases has stopped this.
The appointment of Lord Rees, if
confirmed, is especially worrying. It's the rough equivalent of
appointing King Herod's grand vizier to investigate a mysterious
outbreak of mass baby killing in Judaea.
First, Lord Rees - formerly Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal -
is very much of the catastrophist mindset which helped launch the
whole AGW scare in the first place. Five years ago, he declared:
"I think the odds are no better than
50/50 that our present civilisation will survive to the end of
the present century."
Second, he has previously suggested that
there might be certain areas where frank and open scientific enquiry
is not a good idea.
"He asks whether
scientists should withhold findings which could potentially be
used for destructive purposes, or if there should be a
moratorium, voluntary or otherwise, on certain types of
scientific research, most notably genetics and biotechnology."
Third, he is president of an institution
- The Royal Society - which has persistently used its
distinguished name (founded 1660); and supposed unimpeachable
scientific authority to push AGW theory.
Here is the Royal Society's most recent statement on the subject,
brought out in the aftermath of the Climategate scandal.
The UK is at the forefront of tackling dangerous climate change,
underpinned by world class scientific expertise and advice. Crucial
decisions will be taken soon in Copenhagen about limiting and
reducing the impacts of climate change now and in the future.
Climate scientists from the UK and across the world are in
overwhelming agreement about the evidence of climate change, driven
by the human input of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
As three of the UK's leading scientific organizations involving most
of the UK scientists working on climate change, we cannot emphasise
enough the body of scientific evidence that underpins the call for
action now, and we reinforce our commitment to ensuring that world
leaders continue to have access to the best possible science. We
believe this will be essential to inform sound decision-making on
policies to mitigate and adapt to climate change up to Copenhagen
and beyond.
I'm sure that Lord Rees will strive to be as scrupulously unbiased
as he is possibly capable.
But with a history like this behind him,
I can't say I am terribly reassured.
UPDATE
More on Lord Rees's resolutely neutral
position on AGW - as posted on the Bishop Hill blog.
Interview with Lord Rees:
"What one single thing convinces you
most that climate change is taking place?
The main reason for concern is that the carbon dioxide level is
rising by 0.5 per cent a year and is now at a level that it has
not been at for the last half a million years. I think if we
knew nothing else than that, there would still be great reason
for concern.
What is the most important thing you are personally doing on
climate change?
I am becoming more and more conscious of the need to avoid
waste. I use a small economical car, for instance.
If you were the Prime Minister, what one thing would you do
about climate change?
I think Tony Blair has already played an important role leading
the G8 nations on the climate change issue. I think he was right
to do this and the issue is now high on the international
agenda. The recently published Stern Review on the Economics of
Climate Change will have an impact internationally as well as
help the G8 nations move further on this subject.
Do you agree with the Bishop of London that "making selfish
choices such as flying on holiday or buying a large car are a
symptom of sin"?
Bishops are experts in defining sins and I am not, but one
change that may happen and I hope will happen over the next few
years is that it will become socially unacceptable to be
conspicuously wasteful.
There's so much noise about climate change, are people in danger
of becoming complacent?
It's a difficult issue for the public because the downside is
very long-term and is international, unlike pollution for
instance, which people are concerned about because it affects
their localities. The effects of carbon dioxide emissions are
worldwide rather than local and the most severe effects will be
far in the future. "
Yep. He's going to come down hard on
those CRU scientists all right.
Just the man for the job!
Copenhagen
A Climate of Suspicion
by Christopher Caldwell
November 29, 2009
from
GlobalResearchWebsite
The publication last week of excerpts from 3,000 e-mails stolen from
the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia comes as
a blow to global-warming activists on the very eve of the Copenhagen
climate summit.
The e-mails concern a handful of US and
UK scientists affiliated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. The IPPC has used a graph nicknamed the "hockey stick",
which shows a spike in temperatures in the past century. It is a
centerpiece of the assessment of global warming that will be the
basis of talks in Copenhagen.
But it has its detractors. In a paper published in 2005, the
Canadian economist Ross McKitrick attacked the IPCC's work as
statistically flawed and warned that,
"group efforts are
always at risk of self-selection and groupthink."
Citing the importance of the IPCC to
policymakers, he urged an independent panel be appointed to assure,
first, that "the data are publicly available" and, second, that "the
statistical methods were fully described".
The e-mails appear to bear out Mr McKitrick's worries.
One, allegedly written by Phil Jones of
East Anglia, asks that "Mike" (Michael Mann of the University of
Pennsylvania) and another scientist ("Gene") delete certain of their
e-mails regarding a 2007 IPCC study. The author of the e-mail
volunteers that another scientist ("Keith") would delete his own,
and that "Caspar" would do the same.
At least two letters describe ways the
scientists should use their influence to pressure and delegitimise a
peer-reviewed journal that had published a hostile paper. At least
two describe maneuvers to avoid Freedom of Information requests. The
e-mails do not in themselves undermine the IPCC's science. But they
are evidence of groupthink.
The author of the incriminating
"Phil"
e-mail appears hopeful, at least, that five distinguished scientists
would be willing to destroy their own correspondence to defend their
work not against error but against scrutiny.
Mr Jones said this week that the e-mails
were written out of frustration and that none have been deleted.
Even before the e-mails became public, American public opinion on
climate change had undergone a shift towards skepticism. A
Washington Post poll published this week found that only 72 per cent
of Americans believe global warming "has probably been happening",
as against 80 per cent last year. Since 2006, the percentage of
Americans who think there is no such thing as global warming has
doubled, to 26 per cent.
These findings are in line with a more detailed study done in
October by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The
percentage of Americans who see global warming as a "very serious
problem" has fallen since last year, to 35 per cent from 44 per
cent. This decline is occurring in all regions and all political
parties.
It is sharpest among independents, 79
per cent of whom were seriously worried about global warming in 2008
and barely half of whom (53 per cent) are now. Democrats are more
likely to see global warming as a "serious problem", but only a
minority of them (49 per cent) do. And although Americans marginally
favor President Barack Obama's cap-and-trade plans for reducing
carbon emissions, those who follow the issue closely oppose them by
two-to-one.
A Senate bill that would have
strengthened the president's negotiating hand in Copenhagen has
stalled out and will not be revisited until the end of the year.
Democratic consultant Mark Mellman reacted to the waning faith in
climate change by telling the Post:
"It's a sad state of
affairs when science becomes subject to partisan politics."
But it is worth stressing that
Copenhagen is a political, not a scientific, summit. World leaders
are not going to Copenhagen to discuss whether and how climate
change is happening - they are trying to hammer out solutions. So
perhaps the poll data reflect the folk wisdom that if there is no
solution, there is no problem.
Even if solutions are not scientifically
impossible, they may be politically impossible.
Taxpayers in the developed countries have reason to worry that they
will be taken to the cleaners at Copenhagen. If rich countries get
tight targets for carbon emissions and poor ones get technology
transfers and subsidies (through sellable carbon-offset credits) to
"green their industrialization", then it looks less like a cleanup
and more like a redistribution of productive capacity.
Many programs that appear reasonable in
academic or political conclaves will prove explosive when exposed to
the oxygen of democracy.
Paying poor countries is easier said than done. If you give money
directly to farmers or "rainforest communities", it will be
inefficiently spent. To purchase land, say, or to develop
alternative industry, you need concentrations of capital.
That means giving the money either to
governments (which introduces the certitude of corruption) or big
companies (which introduces the possibility money will simply be
transferred from western wage-earners to western moguls of "green
industry", who already receive large US subsidies and are prone to
confuse their own interests with the developing world's).
Democratic publics are not science faculties. Most of those who urge
teaching creationism, instead of evolution, in high-school biology
classes, for instance, could not explain Darwin's theory to you. But
neither could most of those who consider creationism an embarrassing
superstition. When the public debates scientific questions, it is
not attitudes towards science that divide them but attitudes towards
authority.
The stolen e-mails will not necessarily
settle any scientific arguments.
But they may settle some political ones.
Manipulation of Data and Concepts
The Climate Change EMails
University of East Anglia emails: the
most contentious quotes
November 29, 2009
from
GlobalResearchWebsite
Telegraph
2009-11-23
Here are a selection of quotes from the emails stolen from
computers at the University of East Anglia. Many involve Phil
Jones, head of the university's Climatic Research Unit.
From: Phil Jones
To: Many
Nov 16, 1999
"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick
of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years
(ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the
decline."
Critics cite this as evidence that data was manipulated to mask
the fact that global temperatures are falling. Prof Jones claims
the meaning of "trick" has been misinterpreted
From Phil Jones
To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State
University)
July 8, 2004
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC
report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have
to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
The IPCC is the UN body charged with monitoring climate change.
The scientists did not want it to consider studies that
challenge the view that global warming is genuine and man-made.
From: Kevin Trenberth (US
National Center for Atmospheric Research)
To: Michael Mann
Oct 12, 2009
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at
the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing
system is inadequate"
Prof Trenberth appears to accept a key argument of global
warming sceptics - that there is no evidence temperatures have
increased over the past 10 years.
From: Phil Jones
To: Many
March 11, 2003
"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing
more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome
editor."
Prof Jones appears to be lobbying for the dismissal of the
editor of Climate Research, a scientific journal that published
papers downplaying climate change.
From Phil Jones
To: Michael Mann
Date: May 29, 2008
"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise."
Climate change sceptics tried to use Freedom of Information laws
to obtain raw climate data submitted to an IPCC report known as
AR4. The scientists did not want their email exchanges about the
data to be made public.
From: Michael Mann
To: Phil Jones and Gabi Hegerl
(University of Edinburgh)
Date: Aug 10, 2004
"Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap
criticisms from the idiots in the near future."
The scientists make no attempt to hide
their disdain for climate change skeptics who request
more information about their work.
Call For Independent Inquiry Into Climategate
as...
Global Warming Fraud Implodes
by Paul Joseph Watson
December 2, 2009
from
GlobalResearchWebsite
Calls for an independent inquiry into
what is being dubbed "Climategate" are growing as the foundation for
man-made global warming implodes following the release of emails
which prove researchers colluded to manipulate data in order to "hide the decline" in global temperatures.
Former British chancellor Lord Lawson was the latest to
demand an impartial investigation be launched into the scandal,
which arrives just weeks before the UN climate conference in
Copenhagen.
"They should set up a public inquiry
under someone who is totally respected and get to the truth," he
told the BBC Radio Four Today program.
The emails were leaked at the end of
last week after hackers penetrated the servers of the Climatic
Research Unit, which is based at the
University of East Anglia, in
eastern England.
The CRU is described as one of the
leading climate research bodies in the world.
The hacked documents and communications
reveal how top scientists conspired to falsify data in the face of
declining global temperatures in order to prop up the premise that
man-made factors are driving climate change. Others illustrate how
they embarked on a venomous and coordinated campaign to ostracize
climate skeptics and use their influence to keep dissenting reports
from appearing in peer-reviewed journals, as well as using cronyism
to avoid compliance with Freedom of Information Act requests.
As expected, the establishment media has gone into whitewash
overdrive, characterizing the emails as evidence of "rancor" amongst
the climate community and focusing on some of the lesser emails
while ignoring the true significance of what has been revealed.
Organizations with close ties to the CRU have engaged in
psychological terrorism by fear-mongering about the planet with
doomsday scenarios, illustrating their argument with outlandish
propaganda animation videos which show pets drowning and others that
show computer-generated polar bears crashing to earth in a throwback
to 9/11 victims jumping from the towers, when in reality polar bear
population figures are thriving.
One of the emails under scrutiny, written by Phil Jones, the
centre's director, in 1999, reads:
"I've just completed Mike's Nature
[the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each
series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline," reports the London
Telegraph.
The author admitted to the Associated
Press that the e mail was genuine.
In another example, researchers discuss data that is,
"artificially adjusted to look
closer to the real temperatures".
Apparently, the "real
temperatures"
are whatever global warming cheerleaders want them to be.
As Anthony Watts writes, attempts to claim e mails are "out
of context," as the defense has been from CRU, cannot apply in this
instance.
You can claim an email you wrote years ago isn't accurate saying it
was "taken out of context", but a programmer making notes in the
code does so that he/she can document what the code is actually
doing at that stage, so that anyone who looks at it later can figure
out why this function doesn't plot past 1960.
In this case, it is not allowing all of
the temperature data to be plotted. Growing season data (summer
months when the new tree rings are formed) past 1960 is thrown out
because "these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the
real temperatures", which implies some post processing routine.
Spin that, spin it to the moon if you want. I'll believe programmer
notes over the word of somebody who stands to gain from suggesting
there's nothing "untowards" about it.
Either the data tells the story of nature or it does not. Data that
has been "artificially adjusted to look closer to the real
temperatures" is false data, yielding a false result.
Another email discusses changing temperature data to fix "blips" in
studies so as to make them conform with expectations, which of
course is the cardinal sin of scientific research.
"Conspiracy, collusion in
exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of
embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure,
manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their
public claims and much more" was revealed in
the 61 megabites of confidential files
released on the Internet for anyone to read, writes
Andrew Bolt.
Another email appears to celebrate the
death of climate change skeptic John L Daly, with the words,
"In an odd way this
is cheering news."
In another communication, the author
expresses his fantasy to "beat the crap out of" climate change
skeptics.
In another exchange, researchers appear to discuss ways to discredit
James Saiers of the Geophysical Research Letters journal,
by means of an academic witch hunt, because of his sympathies with
climate change skeptics.
"If you think that Saiers is in the
greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary
evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to
get him ousted."
Other emails express doubt about whether
the world is really heating up and infer that data needs to be
reinterpreted.
"The fact is that we can't account
for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that
we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09
supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but
the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."
Scientists discuss trying to disguise
historical data that contradicts the man-made climate change thesis,
such as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP),
which must be ‘contained' according to one email.
Suppression of evidence is also discussed, with
scientists resolving to delete embarrassing emails.
"And, perhaps most reprehensibly,
writes James Delingpole, "a long series of communications
discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the
peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific
climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written
off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority."
"This was the danger of always criticizing the skeptics for not
publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature'. Obviously, they
found a solution to that... take over a journal! So what do we
do about this? I think we have to stop considering 'Climate
Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we
should encourage our colleagues in the climate research
community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this
journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request
of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the
editorial board… What do others think?"
"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing
more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome
editor. It results from this journal having a number of editors.
The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He
has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past.
I've had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got
nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice!"
Scientists also "discussed ways of
dodging Freedom of Information Act requests to release temperature
data," reports the Daily Mail.
The emails show that scientists relied on cronyism and cozying up to
FOIA officials to prevent them from being forced to release data.
"When the FOI requests began here,
the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests," the email
says. "It took a couple of half-hour sessions to convince them
otherwise."
"Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing
with, everyone at UEA became very supportive. I've got to know
the FOI person quite well and the chief librarian - who deals
with appeals."
It is important to stress that this
compendium merely scratches the surface of the monumental levels
of fraud that have been exposed as a result of the
hacked emails.
People will look back on this moment as the beginning of the end
for global warming alarmism and the agenda to implement
draconian measures of regulation and control along with the levy of
a global carbon tax.
Many more revelations will be forthcoming as a result of this leak,
and the desperate effort on behalf of the establishment to whitewash
the whole issue will only end up making the damage worse.
|
