Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Hacked emails exposing man-made global warming junk science

The ball is rolling, and this fraud is falling apart in rapid fashion.  What I wonder is, will these people's inexcusable scientific crimes be justified by the global warming religion, due to the "Noble Lie" effect, which pardons lies if they're in the name of a popular, well-intentioned cause?

This is SO important because all the global warming legislation and action from the UN and our own congress is based on "Peer-Reviewed" science -->> but if these "peers" are hiding data and using "tricks" (their words not mine) to come up with desired results, then this process is a fraud.

By now, hopefully most people have heard about the hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit of the Universoty of East Anglia.  Thousands of email exchanges between the world's foremost promoters of manmade global warming and its disastrous consequences have been made public.

Before reading some of the highlighted emails, read this quote from Princeton's William Happer, who supervised all non-weapons research at the Department of Energy years ago.  It sheds some light on the difference between regular scientists who're happy to defend and explain their research, and the global warming folks.


“I would have [researchers] come in, and they would brief me on their topics,” Happer explained. “They would show up. Shiny faces, presentation ready to go. I would ask them questions, and they would be just delighted when you asked. That was true of almost every group that came in.”
The exceptions were climate change scientists, he said.
“They would give me a briefing. It was a completely different experience. I remember one speaker who asked why I wanted to know, why I asked that question. So I said, you know I always ask questions at these briefings … I often get a much better view of [things] in the interchange with the speaker,” Happer said. “This guy looked at me and said, ‘What answer would you like?’ I knew I was in trouble then. This was a community even in the early 1990s that was being turned political. [The attitude was] ‘Give me all this money, and I’ll get the answer you like.’ ”


The completely unprofessional and un-scientific practices of the global warming scientists continues. Some of the hacked emails highlighted by the Washington Times below.

-->>In another e-mail, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann, professor Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona and professor Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!"
-->> Mr. Mann sent Mr. Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he was sending shouldn't be shown to others because the data support critics of global warming.

Today the Wall Street Journal also reviews some of the emails:

-->>Mr. Jones writes: "[T]ry and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with."

-->>It also seems Mr. Mann and his friends weren't averse to blacklisting scientists who disputed some of their contentions, or journals that published their work. "I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal," goes one email, apparently written by Mr. Mann to several recipients in March 2003. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal." Mr. Mann's main beef was that the journal had published several articles challenging aspects of the anthropogenic theory of global warming.

-->>For the record, when we've asked Mr. Mann in the past about the charge that he and his colleagues suppress opposing views, he has said he "won't dignify that question with a response." Regarding our most recent queries about the hacked emails, he says he "did not manipulate any data in any conceivable way," but he otherwise refuses to answer specific questions. For the record, too, our purpose isn't to gainsay the probity of Mr. Mann's work, much less his right to remain silent. However, we do now have hundreds of emails that give every appearance of testifying to concerted and coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their critics. In the department of inconvenient truths, this one surely deserves a closer look by the media, the U.S. Congress and other investigative bodies.

No comments:

Post a Comment