Everyone has forgotten about Climategate –
Scientific collusion, chicanery and conspiracy
There is no public accountability for anything that science chooses to do, in other words those who run the dog-and-pony-show can do what the hell they like and this includes misleading all of those who pay their salaries – all of us!. This peculiar state of affairs is achieved by a simple slight of hand – telling us all that we would not understand what they are doing. This is no different from what we tell our children and we have all allowed ourselves to become childlike-like for the benefit of science and encouraged the very real possibility of abuse, which is exactly what we got. However, after a double coat of whitewash and ever more BS everyone was patting these charlatans on the back and blaming the Internet.
A hacking incident was revealed in November 2009, when thousands of e-mails and files ( 61 megabytes) were hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, England. The contents of the e-mails and files were disseminated via the Internet, exposing data that has been doctored to give support to the theory of climate change caused by human CO2 pollution. The hacker was revealing the true state of the art for the benefit of all those who are gullible enough to cling to every word uttered by politically motivated scientists.
en.wiki: “The subsequent dissemination of the material caused a controversy, dubbed “Climategate”, regarding whether or not the e-mails indicated misconduct by climate scientists. The University of East Anglia has announced that an independent review of the allegations will be carried out by Sir Muir Russell (Fellow of the Royal Society) and that the CRU’s director, Professor Phil Jones, would stand aside from his post during the review… (As is the custom, academic violation is investigated by academics)
In the United Kingdom and United States, there were calls for official inquiries into issues raised by the documents. The British Conservative politician Lord Lawson said, “The integrity of the scientific evidence… has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident
The link below is an insightful look into the whole affair:
http://davidpratt.info/climategate.htm
The link below has a full list of the files:
http://www.climate-gate.org/
See also: http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8pjd9xpp
James Delingpole of The Telegraph.co.uk gives extracts from e-mails:
Manipulation of evidence:
Ive just completed Mikes Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keiths to hide the decline.
Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:
The fact is that we cant account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we cant. 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. Hes not in at the moment minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I dont 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, Ill be tempted to bea 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 dont 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 Im 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. Ive had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
The question that is of interest to me and others is: is this the way that all of science does business? If it is, then it’s hard to justify with the fact that we, the public, are paying these people to feed us misinformation. Clinging religiously to a theory for which there is little or no evidence is not unusual.
Even if it is proved that climate change is a fact, this does not prove that the cause of the climate change is man-made. The two, that are presented as one are completely separate issues. The two can only be presented as one if both have been proven and then further proof presented that they are linked. This has not been done.
alixus 