BY: NCViking

This whole Global Warming Climate Change garbage has always irked me. Any reasoned person could simply look at the historical climate data and use common sense to know this theory is grossly flawed. Add a runaway political gravy train pushing radical and useless legislation for the financial benefit of advocates using obscene scare tactics and religious-like propaganda … anyone with a nose (if they chose to use it) could smell a rat. The suspicions have always been there, but now there seems to be hard evidence of an organized effort to deceive.

From The Examiner:

Hackers broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU), a prominent British climate change research center, releasing “researchers” interoffice emails which document deception used, and facts omitted, in furtherance of the man-made global warming myth.

Many skeptics knew of the global warming kooks “who needs truth when you have evidence” mentality, but had no proof, until now. These emails show intentional manipulation of information used and manufactured evidence to support their crackpot theories.

“A 62 megabyte zip file, containing around 160 megabytes of emails, pdfs and other documents, has been confirmed as genuine by the head of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, Dr Phil Jones.” according to Investigate Magazine.

[An email] from Dr. Jones shows the intentional fabrication of “evidence” by falsifying temperature statistics in what Jones refers to as “Mike’s nature trick” to “hide the decline” in actual temperatures. By definition, a decline in temperatures disproves global warming.

From the Telegraph:

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. 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.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But 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.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

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. 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 !”

Links to the emails can be viewed here and good analysis can also be found here.

And there you have it, the deception point. Instead of using data and evidence to construct a valid theory, a bogus theory was used to construct data and evidence. Kind of backwards, no?

It has also always baffled me how scientists and advocates concluded this theory as “settled science”, calling for an end to debate (since when is this done in science?) from conclusions based upon incomplete, error-prone and now allegedly tainted computer models. Conclusions also apparently based in an arrogant “full understanding” of the most complex system on earth. Nothing makes less sense than for the world politic to institute revolutionary global changes to industry and society affecting everyone based upon such a grossly flawed theory … unless, that is, the movement has devolved into pure politics.

If these emails are further confirmed to be valid, this is quite embarrassing for everyone touting this theory, either rightfully or not. It is also clear that the movement has gotten so political with so much money and reputations at stake, even this revelation is likely not going to derail this gravy train from driving the world off of a cliff. Time for clear thinking people to get off already.

• Civilization is at Risk ... SAVE US SUPERWURST! - January 12th, 2012
• No Apology - Believe in Capitalism - January 10th, 2012
• Open Thread #8 - December 5th, 2011
• Open Thread #7 [CLOSED] - October 7th, 2011
• Open Thread #6 [CLOSED] - September 3rd, 2011