theTrumpet.com

New evidence exposes the ugly politics of global warming science. It reveals efforts by leading climatologists to doctor data, delete information contradictory to their hypotheses, and blacklist scientists who oppose their theories of man-made global warming.

More than 1,000 e-mails and documents were released last week after servers of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (cru) were hacked and the information was posted on the Internet.

Here are some samples from the e-mails:

• Doctoring data:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

• Frustration with facts that do not support the global warming theory:

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.

• Destroying evidence:

Can you delete any e-mails 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 e-mail Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new e-mail address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

• Blacklisting scientists who disagree:

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 e-mailing 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.

It is easy to see why cru would have wanted to keep such exchanges confidential.

The university will not confirm that all of the e-mails are authentic, though officials acknowledge their servers were hacked.

The hack is believed to have been the work of a cru insider who has essentially blown the whistle on their operations. Some are calling the Climategate scandal the greatest in modern science. The documents definitely appear to confirm long-held suspicions of skeptics: that the global warming theory is a politically motivated farce.

The Wall Street Journal has tried to contact many of the scientists who sent and received the e-mails in question. It reports,

Some of those mentioned in the e-mails have responded to our requests for comment by saying they must first chat with their lawyers. Others have offered legal threats and personal invective. Still others have said nothing at all. Those who have responded have insisted that the e-mails reveal nothing more than trivial data discrepancies and procedural debates.

Yet all of these nonresponses manage to underscore what may be the most revealing truth: that these scientists feel the public doesn’t have a right to know the basis for their climate-change predictions, even as their governments prepare staggeringly expensive legislation in response to them.

Telegraph columnist James Delingpole has been alerting his readers to the shaky foundation under the global warming theory for years. On November 20, he wrote:

In September—I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie”—cru’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millennium. cru was also the organization which—in contravention of all acceptable behavior in the international scientific community—spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because cru, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the ipcc. …

Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in [anthropogenic global warming], with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But to judge by the way—despite the best efforts of the [mainstream media] not to report on it—the cru scandal is spreading like wildfire across the Internet, this shabby story represents a blow to the agw lobby’s credibility from which it is never likely to recover.

It is sobering to see leading scientists and policy makers ignoring facts to embrace ideology. To understand more about the politics motivating the global warming theory, read Ron Fraser’s article “Global Warming Farce.” •