“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.” Attributed to Abraham Lincoln
On November 20, 2009, an individual or individuals published a file on the Internet containing thousands of emails and other information. But this wasn’t just any old file: this file contained reams of confidential information flowing back and forth between the Hadley Climate Research Unit (HadCru) at the University of East Anglia in Britain, and a small cadre of “elitists” who were promoting the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) agenda throughout the world.
As word leaked out that HadCru’s servers had been compromised and sensitive information placed on the Internet, the silence outside the “skeptic” community was deafening! But within the “skeptic” community, thousands of scientists, researchers, and others salivated at the very thought of what may await them. Ad hoc task forces quickly formed, saved the files to their desktops, and began digging into the mountain of information. What unfolded was stunning, to say the least.
The emails contained ultra-sensitive information on how a small group had been manipulating the AGW issue with false and misleading information; had been systematically blackballing “skeptics” from publishing in peer reviewed journals; had been hiding and even destroying data that didn’t mesh with their pre-conceived opinions and agenda, and had been viciously demonizing all who got in their way.
Reviewers of the now “not-so-confidential” emails began publishing their damming contents on “skeptic” websites throughout the world. Media independents, such as the Fox News Channel, Investors Business Daily, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Times started taking notice and began tracking the issue. The so-called “Main Stream Media” (MSM) took a pass and remained silent.
It wasn’t long however, before the MSM had to take their heads out of the sand and begin addressing the issue. But for the most part, the MSM articles downplayed the importance of the revelations and instead, condemned the hacker who caused all the problems. But was it a hacker? More to come on this later!
One of Europe’s best known and highly respected enviros – George Moribot – had this to say about the rapidly unfolding disclosures:
It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.
Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request. Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.
(Editor’s note: Dr. Phil Jones Is head of the now infamous HadCru)
NPR weighed in on what now has now been dubbed “Climategate” by adding:
… a group of scientists who support the consensus view of climate change have been working together to influence what gets published in science journals.
Journals are supposed to be impartial filters that let good ideas rise to the top and bad ideas sink to the bottom. But the stolen e-mails show that a group of scientists has decided that’s not working well enough. So they have resorted to strong tactics — including possible boycotts — to keep any paper they think is dubious from reaching the pages of a journal.
Not to be outdone, a “Climategate” article appearing in the New York Times included a quote by Judith Curry (Chair, School of Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology) as saying:
This whole concept of, ‘We’re the experts, trust us’ has clearly gone by the wayside with these e-mails.
But that’s only the tip of the iceberg!
Given the fact thousands of scientists and researchers have signed petitions, letters, and other documents challenging the AGW theory, the so-called “consensus” has always been suspect. The emails suggest many scientists were browbeaten into “going along to get along” or threatened with the dire consequence of not getting published in scientific journals. And not getting published can mean the end to one’s career. Others simply fell in line.
The emails flowing back and forth between this small cadre of “elitists” also dealt with methods of marginalizing and demonizing skeptical scientists, manipulating what gets published, and advocating the destruction of data.
The emails also encouraged members of that small group to form a solid front against those challenging their assertions, regardless if those assertions were accurate or not. But while creating a solid front may work in politics, it doesn’t work in science. Science relies on others challenging each hypothesis in an effort to prove or disprove it. This is part of what’s called the “Scientific Method.” The “Scientific Method” also mandates replication, that is, the ability of an outside peer reviewer to duplicate the experiment(s) supporting the originator’s hypothesis. If the experiment can’t be duplicated, the hypothesis is “falsified” and returned to the originator.
But this zealot group of AGW promoters bastardized the “Scientific Method” by refusing to allow “outsiders” to see their papers and instead, reviewed and approved each other’s. Can you imagine how fantastic your college grades would have been if the professor allowed small groups of classmates to correct and grade each others’ papers?
As far as the promoters’ programmed computer models and the “Scientific Method” are concerned, meteorologist and researcher Anthony Watts had this to say:
The same holds true for computer models. This 2006 paper by Rand and Wilensky of Northwestern University: Verification and Validation through Replication: A Case Study Using Axelrod and Hammond’s Ethnocentrism Model (PDF) illustrates clearly the need for replication when it comes to models, something climate science is lacking in when the data and code is not made available to independent researchers.
Outrageously, this rogue band of elitists also refused “outsiders” the ability to review their computer code… and the emails showed why: programmer’s notes revealed how the computer models were rigged to show trends favoring the AGW hoax, and to hide or delete trends showing temperature declines!
So who are these “elitists,” what was their motivation, and how did they almost get away with their AGW scheme and bankrupt the industrialized world in the process?
Filed under: Climategate | 3 Comments »
