(www.morguefile.com)
Hundreds of internal e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, U.K., are currently circulating on the web. Many of these messages appear to show evidence of fakery in a prominent climate research center.
First off, we have this excerpt taken from the telegraph.com.uk : “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie [sic] from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. [emphasis added]”
At first glance, this appears to be out and out deception. The CRU responds that the “trick” is inside baseball for a standard statistical tool, and “hide the decline” refers to the anomaly that tree ring measurements taken since 1961 do not accurately reflect known climate conditions – as in the decline of correlation. For the moment, lets give the researchers the benefit of the doubt.
In another e-mail, the researchers admit to problems: “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. [emphasis added]”
This is interesting on a couple of levels. It is admitted that the data does not support a current warming trend, but note the reaction to that fact. Obviously the observations are wrong since it could not possibly be the case that the theory is in error. From this excerpt we can clearly see that global warming science is operating from an a priori position – that is, the conclusion is assumed before the research has begun.
And another: “... 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” ... [emphasis added]”
The “MWP” is the Medieval Warm Period noted previously in these pages where it was significantly warmer than it is today. In order for global warming alarmism to take hold, the Medieval Warm Period must be ignored, or the data doctored to hide it.
And that leads us right back to the first excerpt above. In light of this last message it is fair to question the standard explanation for the first. Is “trick” really shorthand for legitimate statistical manipulations of the data, or is “trick” a way to cover up data that does not agree with the hypothesis?
Science is supposed to be a rigorous examination of the data to determine the truth, regardless what that truth may be. From just the few short excerpts quoted above, this does not appear to be the case with global warming.
There is an easy way to fix this and prove skeptics wrong about what they are seeing in these e-mails - publish everything, including the data, the correspondence and the program code for the models. This, for some reason, they are reluctant to do.
Rather than open up and disclose their sources, global warming alarmists would rather make ridiculous statements such as “Climate change pushes poor women to prostitution.” It's hard to take them seriously.
See also:
The CRUtape Letters, an Alternative Explanation
Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails
Want to read more articles by the Washington County Independent Examiner?
Subscribe at the top of this column to receive e-mail updates.
Make a comment and add to the discussion, or send Dave an e-mail.
Comments
google "Good climate news bad for alarmists" "Lorne Gunter Edmonton Journal"
My public school and the media had me convinced for years... Until I actually started looking into it objectively. Scientists pursue their self interest like every other individual. they want job security, financial assistance, more scientists, more resources. They have to make things up to get the funding they have. Those who speak out against them are demonized and put their job on the line from the machine within. I am so glad this is finally out for the sheeple to see. Its obvious they try to hide the facts to get their agenda.
Science is not a democracy. All can agree but one. All it takes is the person who is right. That could the the one person. (and likely is in many cases) All that matters is the facts. screw the so called consensus.
This is about regressives and power and control over the mindless masses.
“The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses.” -Vladimir Lenin
Classical Liberal, I couldn't agree more. These so called scientists choose to work on studies that attract funding and media attention. No crisis no work, simple as that. If it weren't for global warming, thousands would be out of work. They know the conclusion they need to support, so they skew the data to get the results they need.
Some of the old scientists must be turning in their graves. They worked countless hours in dingy basements or attics with little or no support.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!