For the purposes of this blog, the only reason I occasionally cover the Global Warming controversy is because it reveals - in a way most people can understand - how the Scientific Establishment - despite all of its protests of being "objective" and "unbiased" - actually is motivated by an anti-life ideology while working to impose that ideology on the rest of us.
The same people who push Global Warming down our throats are the same people who push Darwinism down our throats. In the case of both Darwinism and Global Warming, scientific and political elites advance junk science as "Da Truth" and ostracize anyone who interferences with that "Truth."
With that mind, I hope this new, remarkable scandal about the IPCC - the Nobel Prize-winning organization which is the loudest voice for global warming scaremongering - gets major media attention.
In Friday's Telegraph, James Delingpole dubbed the scandal "Climategate" in his piece, Climategate: The Final Nail in the Coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?
The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet…
As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more…
Here are a few tasters…If genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:
Manipulation of evidence:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up: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.
Suppression of evidence:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise…
And, perhaps most reprehensibly, 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 criticising 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…
Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude…
If the Hadley CRU scandal is true, it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover.