The Climate Gate Swindle

Sherlock Holmes, the legendary fictional detective, often criticized Scotland Yard for sloppy and simplistic investigations. He said they “looked for facts that fit their pre-conceived theories” rather than doing proper detective work, which was “looking for theories that fit all the facts”. This describes the current sad state of the once respected Peer Review process that is driving the science behind the Global Warming theory, called Anthropogenic Global Warming –AGW for short.
Here’s what happened…someone either leaked, or hacked the email servers of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit in the UK. The CRU is not some backwater group of academics, but the center of the research that has powered the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) reports for the last 18 years. The body of emails between the key researchers details a pattern of scientific deception that rivals Watergate. Hence the name “Climategate” You can check out all of the leaked emails for yourself at this link - http://junkscience.com/FOIA/
The scientific peer review process relies on other scientists critically reviewing the data that has fueled the Global Warming theory, but as we learned this week, the CRU scientists confessed to throwing out most of the raw temperature data on which their theories are founded on. The loss of the data prevents other scientists from checking it to determine whether, in fact, there has been a long-term rise in global temperatures during the past century and a half. The CRU and the UN IPCC’s peer review process turns out to be almost non-existent. Hey, why ruin a good headache?
The second revelation of the leaked documents is how the CRU scientists manipulated the data through their software programs, always arriving at one desired outcome – one that lowers temperatures in the past and "adjusts" recent temperatures upward, in order to convince the UN IPCC of accelerated warming. These e-mails also revealed scientists that are deeply frustrated by planetary temperatures that had stubbornly refused to rise in the last 10 years.
The third and most shocking revelation is how this influential cabal of scientists have silenced any expert that questions their dubious findings by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dared to publish their critics' work, and by ensuring that no dissenting research becomes part of the UN IPCC reports.
So what ? We’re being fleeced. Remember the critical elements of the swindle are “The science is settled” and “drastic action must be taken” by the US immediately to limit carbon emissions, which resulted in the cap-and-tax legislation awaiting debate in the Senate, and the global climate meeting in Copenhagen, where world leaders will attempt to globalize cap-and-tax.
All of this lovely intervention is based on a pyramid scheme of scientific data that is compromised, and definitely not peer reviewed. Of the claimed 2500 scientists that support AGW - how many have properly reviewed the data sets? Very few could have, as the data sets were discarded long ago.
The UN IPCC claims to have reviewed all relevant data and published all of it. Oh yeah, except for the last IPCC compendium on climate science, published in 2007, that left out gobs of peer-reviewed science - “ facts that didn’t fit their theory”. These include articles from the journals Arctic, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Earth Interactions, Geophysical Research Letters, International Journal of Climatology, Journal of Climate, Journal of Geophysical Research, Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and Quaternary Research.
Science may be objective; but scientists peddling global warming are not. The main culprits are perhaps the top scientists in the global warming gene pool. Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director, described in a series of emails a ‘trick he employed to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperature trends, as well as discussed attempts to ‘redefine what the peer-review literature is’ to prevent papers that raise questions about AGW from appearing in IPCC reports.
Then there is Penn State's Michael Mann, author of the erroneous “hockey stick” that showed temperatures steady for hundreds of years, then rapidly rising in the late 20th century. Mann agrees with Prof. Jones stating “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! ".
“Kevin” is Kevin Trenberth, who controversially pushed the UN IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity. He wrote, ‘the fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming and it is a travesty that we can’t.’
The scientific peer review process has to be re-established as the truly blind scientific study process it once was. All we have here is a little climate science mixed with a hefty load of leftist political science that is faulty, incomplete and manipulated.