It doesn't matter how many Clinton officials and New York Times editorialists claim otherwise. It doesn't matter whether the IPCC chairman says it. Despite what drivel MediaMatters might be pedaling, this is perhaps the greatest scientific scandal that has occurred in the history of the world. The supposed scientific method of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been irreparably damaged.
In the limited time that I have had to research the scandal, here are some of the items that I have come across:
They have attempted to cover up the gravity of the fraud. More and more people are finding that when they read the entire set of e-mails and other data that was copied from East Anglia's servers, that this IS a very big deal. Clive Crook writes that this conspiracy is at the foundation of nearly everything that passes for climate science today.
The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering. And, as Christopher Booker argues, this scandal is not at the margins of the politicised IPCC process. It goes to the core of that process.
The declaration from [IPCC Chairman] Rajendra Pachauri that the emails confirm all is as it should be is stunning. Science at its best. Science as it should be. Good lord. This is pure George Orwell. And these guys call the other side "deniers".
Global warming expert and author Christopher Booker calls the scandal "the worst scientific scandal of our generation." Booker emphasizes the magnitude of the fraud by highlighting who they are that perpetrated it:
What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others...
British astrophysicist Piers Corbyn stated "that the ClimateGate revelations have rendered man-made global warming fears 'false.'" Corbyn, who belongs to Weather Action, a long-range solar forecasting group, said further that
The case is blown to smithereens and this whole theory should be destroyed and discarded and Copenhagen conference should be closed.Other scientists involved in IPCC agree that Climategate is a genuine fraud. Climate Depot reports that
UN IPCC contributing author Dr. Eduardo Zorita writes: "CRU files: Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process."
Zorita writes: "Short answer: Because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore."
Zorita indicates that he is aware that he is putting his career in jeopardy by going after the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists. "By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication..."The conspirators make it a habit of ostracizing other scientists who do not agree with them. Vincent Gray, who has a Ph. D. in physical chemistry and was one of the founding members of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, submitted nearly 2,000 comments critical of the IPCC's 2007 report, all of which were ignored. Gray explains how scientists who disagree with the prevailing religious dogma are ostracized:
Nothing about the revelations surprises me. I have maintained email correspondence with most of these scientists for many years, and I know several personally. I long ago realized that they were faking the whole exercise.
When you enter into a debate with any of them, they always stop cold when you ask an awkward question. This applies even when you write to a government department or a member of Parliament. I and many of my friends have grown accustomed to our failure to publish and to lecture, and to the rejection of our comments submitted prior to every IPCC report.
The conspirators have destroyed data. Lord Christopher Monckton called them "global warming profiteers" pointing out that they have willfully destroyed data requested by other scientists, which is a criminal offense:
[They] have written to each other encouraging the destruction of data that had been lawfully requested under the Freedom of Information Act in the UK by scientists who wanted to check whether their global temperature record had been properly compiled. And that procurement of data destruction, as they are about to find out to their cost, is a criminal offense. They are not merely bad scientists — they are crooks.They have instructed their computer modeling programs to generate desired, rather than actual, results. The source code of their computer modeling programs is much more damning than their e-mails. Ken Bingham at OneUtah has deciphered the problem quite elegantly. The only original argument that Bingham's sputtering detractors have been able to make is that it's logical that someone would put comments into a computer program explaining that they were going to instruct the program to falsify the data, but then not write the program to do what the comments say it will do.
As an effort to provide cover for the Climategate scandal, an old canard has resurfaced--that CO2 is supposedly increasing acidity in the oceans. This theory has been debunked.
Here are some of the emails that aren't being talked about:
They have conspired to make the data match a preconceived notion. There is the email where someone named Keith Griffa admitted to Michael Mann (who has been implicated in the Climategate scandal) that the actual science suffered as he made his "results" fit the pre-conceived notion of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Griffa wrote:
I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same.
They have conspired to obfuscate peer-reviewed material. For years now, the claim has been that no peer-reviewed articles exist that disagree that man is causing global warming. That is not true, but that's not because the Climategate conspirators have not been trying. Much of the peer reviewed material has been stifled. Some of the discovered emails detail a conspiracy to keep out of the IPCC report any peer-reviewed literature that disagrees with the intent of the Climategate cabal. The Wall Street Journal reports that
In one email, under the subject line "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL," Phil Jones of East Anglia writes to Mann: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow--even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"Peer-reviewed data regularly dispute the allegations of the Climategate crooks. Such disputes have become harder, however, to find, due to a conspiracy to spike them. The Wall Street Journal also noted the revelation that one such tactic was simply to take over any journal that disagreed with the party line.
Mr. Mann noted in a March 2003 email, after the journal "Climate Research" published a paper not to Mr. Mann's liking, that "This was the danger of always criticizing the skeptics for not publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature'. Obviously, they found a solution to that—take over a journal!"
They want you to think that it's only one or two e-mails. There are thousands of e-mails into which the web of deception is interwoven. You can read them all by clicking here if you want to.
On at least one occasion, members of the Climategate clique used email to encourage others to delete incriminating emails.
Jason Lewis called it not just a smoking gun, but a "smoking cannon". James Inhofe calls Climategate the "final nail in the coffin of cap and trade". Yet the religious zealots of Climategate refuse to let go of their propaganda, claiming that it's just about a couple of e-mails. You now know that it's about far more than that.
It's time for Americans of all stripes to come out of the comforts of your caves. Make sure that you don't, with your acquiescence, allow this conspiracy to stand. As Lord Monckton said recently
What we are faced with is a tyranny, world wide, over the mind and body of man, and it is the duty of every red blooded United States citizen to oppose with every fiber of his being what is being done…by this Administration to try and sign away your Constitution at Copenhagen.If you want to keep abreast of just how much more there really is to the scandal than just 1 or 2 e-mails, check out the following web sites:
Thousands of tweets per day recently have mentioned the term "Climategate".