We have heard time-and-time again that the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was comprised of ethical scientists with no political agenda and whose findings were published in reputable scientific journals under the strictest of peer-review procedures.
However, we are finding that the reality is much different from the media-friendly version. The whistle-blower leaked e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) paints a much different picture.
One, the peer-review process which is a pre-publication review of an author’s work to check for obvious mistakes, unclear writing and potential errors is just that; a pre-publication review to insure that the submitted material is clearly understandable and contains no obvious mistakes. This process does not confirm the validity of what is being presented nor does the reviewer check data sources, computational methods or express an opinion on the work. So what is being sold as a peer-reviewed scientific article is something less than what the public has been led to believe.
Two, a number of prominent researchers have apparently found a way to subvert the peer-review process. By managing to have their work reviewed by friendly reviewers. By attempting to coerce certain scientific journals from publishing the work of scientists with a contrarian viewpoint; mostly through threats of submitting their work elsewhere. By demanding that certain journal editors and reviewers be sanctioned by their journals. All of which thoroughly manipulates the peer-review process.
Three, certain scientists withheld raw data, modified data, computer programs and other key information which is part of the normal process of replicating, confirming or refuting a scientist’s work. The leaked emails leads one to conclude that key scientists deliberately thwarted freedom of information requests by other legitimate scientists and may have deliberately destroyed key emails, data and computer programs to keep others from finding fault with their work.
And it gets worse …
Recent announcements by the IPCC and other key scientists have revealed that not everything that was included in the IPCC report came from peer-reviewed scientific journals; the most notable exceptions coming from popular publications or submitted by climate activists. Many of these items were erroneous and submitted to pursue a political, media or funding agenda that had absolutely nothing to do with the underlying science. In some instances, scientists knew that the published information was wrong, exaggerated or had absolutely no basis in fact. One researcher claimed that it was perfectly fine to submit exaggerations to attract media attention and funding for projects. Others claimed that the public policy initiatives were so important as to justify the means employed to effect the end result.
A review of the actual raw climate data also shows that it had been somewhat manipulated by cherry-picking reporting stations, the improper location of weather reporting stations and the deliberate re-calculation of the raw data to meet the needs of climate models. Models which did not and could not explain or exhibit the actual climate characteristics for the past ten or so years.
Even now, Phil Jones, the leading climatologist at the CRU is now belatedly and grudgingly admitting that he was a sloppy researcher, that certain key findings which were previously omitted were likely to have occured and that the entire climate research scenario was based on a “best efforts/good faith” effort.
Of course, the end result was to magnify the existing climate research (some of which we now know was manipulated) into an existential threat to the planet that demanded immediate self-serving public policies which resulted in billions of dollars pumped into a corrupt system of special interests.
An attempt to redeem reputations and restore funding …
The truth is that global warming has always been about a hypothesis which was tested only by computer models with forced assumptions and which fed on corrupt data. And now that the whole shebang is unraveling with demonstrable unscientific and unethical behavior, the perpetrators of this loosely-coupled sham are suffering greatly. The personal reputations and those of their prestigious institutions are being cast in doubt. Doubt extreme enough to delay or cancel major funding for further research. Funding which not only pays for the scientist’s salaries, but funds a great portion of the organization’s overhead.
Damage Control: spinning the story in the media …
Caught red-handed, the scientists are attempting to spin the story to their advantage.
According to the Washington Times …
“Climate scientists to fight back at skeptics”
“Undaunted by a rash of scandals over the science underpinning climate change, top climate researchers are plotting to respond with what one scientist involved said needs to be ‘an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach’ to gut the credibility of skeptics.
This statement should raise the hackles of any reputable scientist as science is not based on partisanship and that one’s work, as published in reputable journals, should be confirmation or refutation enough for the scientific community. Of course, the issue of climate change and global warming has never been about the science, but about the public policy which drives the funding. The old saying “follow the money” has never been truer.
“In private e-mails obtained by The Washington Times, climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences say they are tired of’"being treated like political pawns’ and need to fight back in kind. Their strategy includes forming a nonprofit group to organize researchers and use their donations to challenge critics by running a back-page ad in the New York Times.”
Excuse me! Some of these scientists are the very ones that manipulated the system for their own self-interests. These are the ones that corrupted the data, the programming and the peer-review process. How can we even begin to trust what they say when their stated agenda is to challenge critics? How many other readers wonder how the New York Times suddenly became a peer-reviewed journal to discuss the refutation of scientific theories?
"’Most of our colleagues don't seem to grasp that we're not in a gentlepersons' debate, we're in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules,’ Paul R. Ehrlich, a Stanford University researcher, said in one of the e-mails.”
Enemies? Science has no friends and no enemies. By its very nature science demands skepticism and a continual re-testing of scientific hypotheses. The fact that some scientists are attempting to use Alinsky’s socialist tactics to demonize their enemies is abominable and the pronouncements from these scientists should be taken with a health dose of distrust.
“Some scientists question the tactic and say they should focus instead on perfecting their science, but the researchers who are organizing the effort say the political battle is eroding confidence in their work.”
Those scientists who say that the focus should be on the perfection of the science are absolutely correct. Those who claim the political battle is eroding confidence in their work are probably among the most corrupt of the scientists who strayed from the path of science to pursue gains in the political realm. How can you have public confidence in research which is demonstrably wrong, manipulated or has been crafted to yield a preordained result?
"This was an outpouring of angry frustration on the part of normally very staid scientists who said, 'God, can't we have a civil dialogue here and discuss the truth without spinning everything,'" said Stephen H. Schneider, a Stanford professor and senior fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment who was part of the e-mail discussion but wants the scientists to take a slightly different approach.
The scientists have been under siege since late last year when e-mails leaked from a British climate research institute seemed to show top researchers talking about skewing data to push predetermined outcomes. Meanwhile, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the authoritative body on the matter, has suffered defections of members after it had to retract claims that Himalayan glaciers will melt over the next 25 years.
Obama: the personification of hyper-partisan political corruption?
“Last month, President Obama announced that he would create a U.S. agency to arbitrate research on climate change.
Considering who President Obama has chosen for his scientific advisors and how partisan the debate over climate change has become, it is next to impossible to believe that we need another taxpayer-funded, hyper-political, bureaucratic agency to referee the work of scientists.
“Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican and a chief skeptic of global-warming claims, is considering asking the Justice Department to investigate whether climate scientists who receive taxpayer-funded grants falsified data. He lists 17 people he said have been key players in the controversy.”
This is a legitimate route of inquiry since the taxpayer has funded billions in research grants and pursued public policy based on a demonstrably flawed global warming hypothesis.
“That news has enraged scientists. Mr. Schneider said Mr. Inhofe is showing ‘McCarthyesque’ behavior in the mold of the Cold War-era senator who was accused of stifling political debate through accusations of communism.”
Let’s review: Joseph McCarthy was a drunk, disreputable, disgusting Senator who was 100% right – the United States government at key institutions (education, media, etc.) were subverted by Soviet spies. A fact clearly and concisely proven by documents received after the end of the “cold war.” And yet, the far-left political interests continue to throw up McCarthy’s name whenever an investigation promises to be damaging to their interests. In this case, the witch-hunt actually produced witches.
And I find it ironic that there is a reference to communism since the environmental movement has been infiltrated, and in many cases compromises, by socialists, communists and anarchists pursuing their political agenda and subverting our institutions by using our own laws against us. Look at the supporters of the United Nations and the major environmental players and you will find a significant far-left position and connections to radical organizations.
“In a phone interview, Mr. Schneider, who is one of the key players Mr. Inhofe cites, said he disagrees with trying to engage in an ad battle. He said the scientists will never be able to compete with energy companies.”
"’They're not going to win short-term battles playing the game against big-monied interests because they can't beat them,’ he said.”
What a demonstrable lie! First, the energy companies are nowhere as big, influential or monied as the United States government who has poured billions of dollars into global warming research. Money which has clearly affected the research as scientists, eager to please their institutions to obtain research funding and personnel, promote positions which please the institution’s funders: the government. Politics corrupting science!
“He said the ‘social contract’ between scientists and policymakers is broken and must be reforged, and he urged colleagues to try to recruit members of Congress to take up their case. He also said the press and nongovernmental organizations must be prodded.”
I call bullshit. There is no social contract or any other contract between scientists and policymakers. Science stands independent of politics, letting the chips fall where they may. Public policy built on incontrovertible science is acceptable, but when the science is manipulated to make public policy, heads should roll!
"’What I am trying to do is head off something that will be truly ugly,’ he said. ‘I don't want to see a repeat of McCarthyesque behavior and I'm already personally very dismayed by the horrible state of this topic, in which the political debate has almost no resemblance to the scientific debate.’"
Ugly? Scientific debate? Again, I must call bullshit! Key climate researchers have shouted down all of those who attempted to raise legitimate questions about the science. Lies, distortion and mistruth is ugly. And those who were involved in perpetrating this ugliness was be investigated and sanctioned. They have stolen from the taxpayer’s purse and must be held accountable.
Bottom line …
Unless the scientists and institutions which produced this controversy are investigated by honest brokers, the public will have little or no confidence in the findings of the scientists involved in climate research.
Anyone will notice that this controversy has not spilled over to other branches of science – but remains contained within a very small circle of climate researchers and well-funded institutions. The public has not lost confidence in science, but in those who got caught manipulating the system for personal, professional and financial gain. And a reasonable man will note that our government has taken advantage of the situation to advance their political agenda of larger government, more taxes, greater control over the population and in the reduction of personal freedoms. All appearing to promote a perpetual policies class much like that of the failed Soviet Union that relies central planning for the benefit of the people. Yeah right.
Our government has been corrupted by self-interest. Our institutions are failing to withstand the dictates of those who are supplying funding. And it should come as no surprise that those who work for these institutions should also provide predictable results based on their self-interest. Thus creating a circle of corruption, complacency and blatant systemic manipulation.
We must break this cycle by electing honest brokers to serve “we the people.” We must investigate and sanction those who have stolen from the public purse. And, most of all, we should protect our precious freedoms by returning to a Constitutionally sound government. We must do this before we reach the tipping point and turn into the Soviet Union – with more consumer goods and better weather – but with the same degree of personal freedom.
Vote as if your life depended on your choice – because it surely does.
And if the scientists want to fight for a righteous cause, let them fight the scientists who have damaged the reputation of science with their unscientific methods and means.
-- steve
Reference Links …
Washington Times - Climate scientists to fight back at skeptics
Comments