November 24, 2009

Edit ➞ Delete

As the information continues to come forth regarding the disreputable nature of the scientists who have pushed the theory that global warming must be man-made, we are able to see that these so-called researchers not only became frustrated when the data didn’t show them what they wanted to see, but at one point they wanted to cover their tracks as to hide all potential traces of evidence against their actions.

This situation is troubling on many different levels. These so-called scientists were able to influence public opinion and public policy by suggesting that their “research” was genuine. Along the way—as was mentioned in the first batch of e-mails that was discussed yesterday—they were willing to use “tricks” (their own word) to “hide” declines in temperature that were discovered.

The researchers also wanted to squash any research that questioned them or their findings.

Today it was revealed that these folks not only doubted the data that were appearing before them because it didn’t support what they wanted to see, but they actually went so far as formulating ways to illegally delete e-mails in an effort to avoid detection of what they were saying or doing.

One e-mail from the researchers states the following:
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. Our observing system is inadequate.
Another states that the researchers would like to “contain” the climate data from the Medieval Warm Period, which was during the ninth century through the thirteenth century. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, temperatures during this period “were warmer over the Northern Hemisphere than during the subsequent ‘Little Ice Age,’ and also comparable to temperatures during the early twentieth century.”

This fact gives rise to the possibility that any global temperature increases might very well be part of Earth’s natural climate cycle, thus decreasing the possibility that humans are the be-all and end-all of warming trends.

In another e-mail—for me, one of the most illustrative of the researchers’ level of ethics and believability—the scientists actually go so far as attempting to devise plans to delete any damning e-mails without getting caught, since these e-mails were to be saved for Freedom of Information Acts.

Research Unit director Phil Jones said the following in one e-mail to Penn State’s Michael Mann:
“If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”
He also stated:
“We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”
Jones also urged Mann to delete his e-mails, too:
“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re [the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report]?”
Jones was also hoping that the citizens of the United Kingdom would be in the dark to the existence of their Freedom of Information Act. He wrote the following in an e-mail to Professor Malcolm Hughes at the University of Arizona:
“I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!”
Scientists are supposed to collect data and compare those data to their hypothesis. From reading these e-mails—these researchers’ own words—it has become clear that their theories were the most important aspect of their “research” and they were then willing to come up with ways to make the data work in their favor, whether that meant using “tricks” or other ways to “contain” the actual numbers. After all, in their own words, the evidence must be wrong.

What’s more, these so-called researchers were then willing to go one step further and wanted to destroy any and all evidence of their questionable tactics. Their aim was to delete the damaging e-mails and hope that no one would find out that the public had a legal right to see them.

I support science over faith (I’m actually a borderline atheist), and I’m greatly opposed to pollution. I really do like clean air and I have no problem holding pollution-creating companies responsible for the crap that they put into the air and water.

At the same time, I have no respect for so-called scientists who are willing to make a name for themselves by any means necessary. I have no respect for people who call themselves “researchers” but do little more than look for ways to manipulate evidence in an effort to support whatever it is that they’re hoping to find in the first place. I have no respect for people who are willing to break the law in an effort to hide the facts and hope that the public will never find out.

Considering what has transpired over the last two days, this is the very description of Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and their ilk who are found in the global-warming-is-not-natural crowd.

Public policy can be shaped with this information and because of that these men are—or were—in a position of power. Because there was and is money involved via research grants, an added incentive of dollar signs entered the picture.

But, as has become quite evident, when there are billions of dollars involved in something, all bets are off.

UPDATE: 11/26/09
Michael Mann is insisting that, even though the e-mails are currently available online in their entirety, the excerpts are actually being used out of context. Here is each one:

Global Warming E-Mails

One other aspect that I’m discovering via comments left on many of the news stories related to this story is that of attempting to deflect the substance of the e-mails in an effort to swing the focus of the case to that of the hacking.

Some of those which best illustrate this approach are here:






Since the e-mails were obtained illegally, reasons this commenter, we should simply ignore the possibility of manipulated data, the consideration to destroy documents covered under Freedom of Information Acts in two different countries, attempts to affect positions of academic journals, and refusal to make data available to some academic journals.

This commenter is upset that one political party might benefit:



I would argue that this situation transcends party politics, even though both parties have weighed in on global warming over the years, given the size and scope of the topic.

If party politics are going to play a major role—which I honestly don’t think that it should—I would hope that liberal Americans won’t forget a little incident that occurred in 1996 when Democratic Representative Jim McDermott illegally taped a telephone call between Newt Gingrich and then-House Majority Leader John Boehner.

McDermott was eventually ordered to pay Boehner over $700,000 for leaking the tape to reporters, but McDermott’s lawyers argued that illegally taping phone calls and leaking them to the press were covered under McDermott’s First Amendment rights. They were also supported in a brief filed by lawyers from ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, The Associated Press, The New York Times, and The Washington Post.

When the story first broke, I remember those on the left arguing that the illegality of the recording and leaking should be ignored due to the nature of the conversation. In the phone call, Gingrich and Boehner discussed how they would handle media responses to possible ethics violations against Gingrich. The problem was that this phone call wasn’t supposed to have taken place in the first place; the call itself was a violation of an agreement between Gingrich and investigators from the Ethics Committee.

Since the substance of the phone call was what it was, leftists argued, the possible illegal nature of what McDermott did should be ignored.

The leftists are now front and center, fighting to bring down the hacker who leaked these e-mails and hoping that the text of the e-mails disappears.

•••

I would have no objection to punishing the hacker. He/she did violate the law. With that said, however, the genie is out of the bottle; we see that things were said—not out of context—which clearly suggest questionable conduct by researchers who received tax dollars to carry out “research” which may have been altered to better illustrate a desired result. In other cases they—at least one, for sure—were willing to destroy e-mails that should have never been deleted in accordance with the law.

References
A Paleo Perspective on Global Warming.” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Delingpole, James. “Climategate: The Final Nail in the Coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?The Telegraph. 20 Nov. 2009.

Gonçalves, Isabel. “Hacked Global Warming Emails Pose Further Legal Risk.” International Business Times. 23 Nov. 2009.

Hiding Evidence of Global Cooling.” Washington Times. 24 Nov. 2009.

Ω

No comments: