We've recently confirmed that climate change advocates masquerading as scientists systematically pushed U.K. temperatures up and deleted data--"to hide the decline" in the raw data. And it's not just Britain--figures published last week by the New Zealand Climate Coalition show that most of the supposed warming was created by man-made adjustments to the data:
source: New Zealand National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research
source: New Zealand Climate Coalition
In New Zealand, six of the seven weather stations "had their past (pre-1950) data heavily adjusted downwards. In all six cases this significantly increased the overall trend." And a N.Z. scientist who also formerly worked at Britain's CRU was quoted in the leaked emails reacting to a paper casting doubt on human causation for warming: "If it is not rebutted, then all sceptics will use this to justify their position."
I thought Jonah Goldberg's previously quoted reference to the No True Scotsman fallacy an apt analysis of how the media treats warming skeptics. It also applies to Rajendra Pachauri -- the "former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science" now chairing the UN's IPCC climate change group -- who repeatedly dissembled about statistics and suppressed dissent. Pachauri insists man-made global warming wasn't undermined by the hacked CRU emails because -- get this! -- all the science is peer reviewed. Yet that's precisely the problem--the warming zealots have hijacked peer review, as shown by two CRU emails discussing contrary studies:
- 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 !
- This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board...
The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at, and how a single view of warming and its causes is being enforced. The impression left by the correspondence among Messrs. Mann and Jones and others is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start.Conclusion: A summary of the most outrageous leaked emails is here. My favorite so far is dated October 12, 2009:
According to this privileged group, only those whose work has been published in select scientific journals, after having gone through the "peer-review" process, can be relied on to critique the science. And sure enough, any challenges from critics outside this clique are dismissed and disparaged. . .
The response from the defenders of Mr. Mann and his circle has been that even if they did disparage doubters and exclude contrary points of view, theirs is still the best climate science. The proof for this is circular. It's the best, we're told, because it's the most-published and most-cited--in that same peer-reviewed literature. The public has every reason to ask why they felt the need to rig the game if their science is as indisputable as they claim.
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.Got that? Like neo-Marxist Frenchmen -- though the CRU also stifled contrary French findings -- warming advocates only acknowledge facts that fit their pre-conceived theories. This isn't science--as Frank Tipler says, it's
an act of treason against science. It is also an act of treason against humanity, since it has been used to justify an attempt to destroy the world economy.The only solution to test the conspiracy theory called climate change is to release everything, the raw numbers, the adjustment algorithms, the computer code. Stop confining the science to those with an axe to grind and let the data speak for themselves.
Up 'till now, it's been as Mark Steyn says, plus ça climate change, plus c'est la même chose. The White House still holds that line. But the coming slogan is: "Scientists lied, Kyoto died."
(via Instapundit, Best of the Web, Reboot Congress)