EDITORIAL

Global Warming Cover-Up

S cientific method demands that a theory be verifiable, falsifiable, and predictive. Others must be able to duplicate a study and get the same results. It must be possible to prove a theory wrong. And ideally, the theory should be able to predict something new which can then be tested and confirmed. The free exchange of raw data and modeling information is crucial to all of these. But apparently, these principles are passé, at least among climate-change “scientists,” who see no further need to test their data, or even to make it available.

Fudging Data That Doesn’t Support the Desired Conclusions

What has been uncovered is shocking: In mid-November of 2009 a large e-mail collection was hacked from a computer at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in England and made available on the web. CRU is the home of Professor Phil Jones, its director and one of the world’s leading climate scientists (ahem). The hacked e-mails involve communication among a worldwide group of researchers and policy advocates with similar ideological positions. In these missives, this group shamelessly discusses the removal, destruction, and hiding of data that does not support global-warming claims. In e-mail after e-mail, many of the principal global-warming scientists have consistently thrown away the tenets of science—fudging study data, blacklisting opposing scientists and the journals that print dissident studies, and much more—lest the public know the truth that many (if not all) of the global warming conclusions are false.

“Solving” the Problem Through Vaporization

Emblematic of the sorry state of climate science, Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore, the godfather of global warming scientism, appeared on the Conan O’Brien show in November, and while discussing geothermal energy said that it is promising because “the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot.” This is from the man who refuses to debate global warming because, in his judgment, it represents irrefutably solid scientific consensus. This is the man who is viewed as a scientific guru. Yet his statement is wildly off—by a multiple of 1,000 times! If the earth was that hot, it would be a star, and we wouldn’t have any energy problems because we would all be vaporized!

Along with Professor Michael E. Mann—a colleague at Pennsylvania State University, who has also been important in the climate debate—Professor Jones plays a principal role in the e-mails. In one e-mail, Mr. Jones wrote to Mr. Mann about the “trick of adding in the real temps to each series . . . to hide the decline [in temperature].” Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, two Canadians who have devoted years to seeking the raw data and codes used in climate studies, were referenced in another e-mail, “The two MMs have been after the [our] station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. . . . We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.” This is attributed to Phil Jones in a 2005 email to Michael Mann, known for his “hockey stick” graph that apparently produces the same conclusion whatever the data. That conclusion is global warming.

Temperature Decline and The Right to Know

In the e-mails, warming scientists urge each other to present a “unified” view of anthropogenic climate change, while discussing the importance of the “common cause.” They actually advise each other about smoothing over data to prevent compromising the favored hypothesis, discussing ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals, and offering tips on how to “hide the decline” of temperature in “inconvenient” data.

According to The Wall Street Journal, some of those mentioned in the emails responded to their requests for comment by saying they had to talk to their lawyers, while other made legal threats peppered with personal invective.1 Some said nothing, and those responding insisted that the contents of the e-mails were trivial or merely procedural debates. As per the Journal, “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.”

Avoiding Freedom of Information Requests

When none of the techniques worked, Professor Jones suggested a work-around in an August 2008 email to Gavin Schmidt of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. “The FOI [Freedom of Information] line we’re all using is this . . . IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] is exempt from any countries [sic] FOI—the skeptics have been told this. Even though we . . . possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part of our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don’t have an obligation to pass it on.”

In an email of 1999, Dr. Jones told three others: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps for each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

The exposure of these e-mails bears witness to rigorous coordination by leading climatologists to mold the data to fit their conclusions, all the while silencing and discrediting critics. Writes the Journal, “In the department of inconvenient truths, this one surely deserves a closer look by the media, the U.S. Congress and other investigative bodies.”

In fact, there has been no statistically significant “global warming” for 15 years—and there has been rapid and significant cooling for nine years. If pharmaceutical scientists had amassed the same power, no one could say that nutrients have any benefit, not without running the gauntlet from which few would survive.

Live long and prosper,

Will Block

Reference

  1. Global warming with the lid off. The Wall Street Journal, November 24, 2009.

FREE Subscription

  • You're just getting started! We have published thousands of scientific health articles. Stay updated and maintain your health.

    It's free to your e-mail inbox and you can unsubscribe at any time.
    Loading Indicator