Turning up the heat on the global warming theory

The news is spreading about the hacking of the computers at University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the United Kingdom last week. This represents one of the leading "expert" sources on global warming. Why is this significant? Because the over 3,000 emails and documents that found their way to the web reveal the effort to hide the truth about climate change.

As you might imagine, the nature of the emails has generated considerable interest. And for the gurus of global warming, it has caused understandable concern. Interestingly, someone today pointed out that if the truth about the global warming is that the globe is not warming, those who have continued to sound the alarm should be ecstatic. And yet, they are anything but. Which only makes sense if it turns out that the Goracle & Co. are perpetuating a conspiracy--based on a theory in which they have invested considerable time, energy, and reputation. This latest development does not bode well for their cause, so we'll see...

Comments

[chris corwin]

this has been well, well, discussed and it's pretty clear that:

a) when coming up with a scientific theory, the smart people talking about the major points will have disagreements

b) none of the emails, taken out of context though they were, do anything near the hype they've been accused of doing

c) people smart enough to hack into a scientist's email ought to also be smart enough to know (a) and (b)

[Resident Atheist]

I keep hearing these emails were taken out of context. I'm trying to understand under what context

"If FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them."

would be acceptable. Any honorable scientist does not hide information. Usually, they are so excited that someone cares, they are willing to be quite forthcoming. Many of the quotes I have read are not acceptable under any circumstances.

This isn't about disagreements about the science, Chris. It's about forcing the the data to meet pre-determined results. It's about intentionally stifling opposing viewpoints and squashing open debate.

You should be upset about how this affects legitimate scientists and their ability to convince people about things like climate change and evolution.

Do I think the world is warming? Sure. Do I think man is causing it? Don't know, probably. Do I think it's appropriate to scare people into action by misleading or over-stating the accuracy of limited empirical data? No way.

I bet if this data was showing how effective the Bush administration policies were at stopping terrorism, you wouldn't be quite so dismissive of the complaints.

[John]

I had intended to reply to your comment earlier, Chris, but RA has beaten me to the punch with his usual clarity. Certainly, scientists (or anyone, for that matter) can have disagreements about anything. But these emails show much more than that (and with over 3,000 to evaluate, the opportunity to ensure they are kept in their proper context is multiplied). It is about the effort to stifle dissenting opinion on the issue of global warming. To attempt to dismiss this issue in favor of the "spirited-disagreement-between-smart-people" argument is misleading at best.

Furthermore, if, as RA insightfully pointed out, this is an example of the standard of scientific inquiry these days, then science is quickly moving down the road toward irrelevancy. No longer will it be seen as the source of legitimate authority on global warming, evolution, or any other aspect of natural life on our planet. In fact, it is the legitimate scientists who should be leading the charge in uncovering the egregious nature of this scandal, to ensure that this kind of thing does not happen again in the future.

[andy]

If you check times online there's an article about the scientists in britain admitting to dumping the data on climate change. The first comment I saw reads

"bruce smith wrote:
I am a lawyer of thirty years with an engineering degree....I don't have a lock on logic, but this global warming email disclosure, and now the incredible loss of raw data relating to science about the alleged destruction of the earth.... should be one of the biggest stories of the last 100 years, bigger than the Pentagon Papers or Watergate or any other...because the entire world was being manipulated into action based on the premise that the world might come to an end on science that was supposed to be unimpeachable........
Trillions are to be spent that is all based on science that was never vetted as promised, never peer reviewed at any reasonable degree as promised, let alone what should have been the highest degree of peer review ever on something this important to the future of the world...based on manipulated data...based on purposely withholding for years what the science was based on...based on the trust that scientists were given and abused while accusing others of being biased.....and now based on scientists losing all the raw data without telling anyone..based on scientists clearly playing politics at the highest levels.... even breaking the law to keep any truth about what the populace believe could be the end of the world....
It means that fifteen years of NON PEER reviewed science based on lost raw data....is meaningless....nothing said can be trusted.
Everything about GW, or AGW...is without any adequate peer reviewed process...and is still just a hypothesis...a theory....Any court would throw this case out on its tail when the experts at the highest levels were shown to have manipulated data of ANY kind, to have hidden data from the other side, to have attempted to keep the other side from testifying....

How many riots, how many people did we starve, a few years ago while the European Union and world forced so much of the worlds corn and food supply , all to instead be burned up to create biofuel to save the planet...based on non peer reviewe"

I think this is well said.