Share this
Mister Wong
Digg
Del.icio.us
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Technorati
Newsvine
Googlize this
Blinklist
Facebook
Wikio
Hear this text
Export PDF
Print
E-mail
As you will probably already be aware, some individual has been sufficiently hacked-off with the endless stream of nonsense about climate change to hack in to the computers at the UK’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Now, torrents of filthy water have been unleashed from behind the walls, giving us a real glimpse into the operation of one of the most influential organisations of its kind in the world, and the minds of those behind it. It’s not a pretty sight.
This case of scientific fraud – for that is what it seems to be – ought to wake us up, not only to the fact that global warming is rammed down our throats by holier-than-thou eco-zealots, but also to the fact of how politics is done today. Behind closed doors. You’re not allowed in. Standing between you and every decision that affects you, your future, your childrens' future, and your money, is a gatekeeper.
The gatekeepers of scientific data at the CRU withheld evidence that would undermine the argument for climate-change legislation, regulation, and taxation. I bang on about windfarms, pointless and dangerous recycling and landfill directives, stupid light-bulb bans, and so on. Each of these policies is in no small way owed to the “research” produced by the CRU, and leads directly to the policies that make them happen. So, you see, what looks for all the world like a polite scientific, academic institution in East Anglia might as well be in Westminster. Or, for that matter, Brussels. Because, as the leaked emails reveal, this wasn’t a polite academic institution at all, it was a department for propaganda. It produced graphs and data to support policies, and it locked out anyone who dared to question them, and it hid any inconvenient truths.
And so it is with Brussels and Westminster. They too are surrounded by gatekeepers.
In spite of climate-sceptic public opinion, the government and the opposition parties press ahead with environmental legislation. In spite of clearly expressed Euro-sceptic public opinion, the government and opposition parties remain mealy-mouthed with respect to the extent of our membership of the European Union. In spite of public opinion, focus-groups, quangos, and undemocratic committees, hide behind data from bogus research organisations, NGOs like Greenpeace, and fake charities. This all leaves you with less and less control, and puts their decision-making process out of your reach. Politics today is done behind closed doors, and between unanswerable self-important and self-serving cliques. Climategate is just one symptom of this rot.
I will spare you the scientific details of what has emerged from Climategate, as there are many people doing a much better job of sorting through it than I can. If you’re interested in this sort of stuff, I thoroughly recommend you have a good tour of the sites and stories linked to below. Events like this provide an opportunity to get either newly acquainted with, or a new grip on the debate, as they call into question so much that has been discussed previously, and to see it in a new light.
But don’t just sit on the information. Harass your MPs,MEPs, and local councillors with it. Confront environmental activists with it. Make them answer the questions that the scandal has thrown up. Remember, they are the ones who want to change the world, and to make it less easy for you to work, to live, and to enjoy your life. They want to limit your freedom, tax your income, and regulate your lifestyle. They want control over your future. So they better have a bloody good reason for it, and they can no longer say “science says...” Climate science has been shown to be as corruptible as politics.
My rough guide to Climategate discussions.
The razor-sharp James Dellingpole got the Climategate ball rolling with a quick rundown of the first things to emerge from the affair: the manipulation of evidence, doubts about whether the world really is heating up, and the suppression of evidence. Is “Climategate the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?”, he wonders. Let’s hope so.
Anthony Watts, has blog posts covering the affair, including this neat little primer explaining the scandal to newcomers. Climategate: “Men behaving badly” – a short summary for laymen. For those unfamiliar with Anthony’s work, his blogging work began as a project to assess the quality of each of the weather data recording stations sited throughout the USA. Some of these stations began life in the middle of fields. But over the course of the last century, as towns and cities have expanded, many of these same locations are now covered in tarmac, or are next to huge buildings. So the temperature record which is being used to prove global warming may in fact have been measuring building instead, because as we all know, it’s cooler in the countryside than in the town, because fields, mud and grass hold less heat than do tarmac and concrete.
Steve McIntyre has been trying to get to the bottom of theinfamous ‘hockey stick’ graph that has become an icon of the global warming movement for a number of years now, blogging his results along the way. His website is well worth a visit if you’ve got a real head for statistics, and are interested in the forensic analysis of climate change nonsense. His perspective on what has emerged from Climategate will no doubt be amongst the most insightful. From McIntyre’s site, Climate Audit, this graph gives an example of the data is manipulated to achieve the politically-correct ‘research’.
[pic] Two versions of Briffa MXD reconstruction, showing archived and climategate versions.
Bishop Hill, author of a soon to be published book, TheHockey-Stick Illusion blogs here. Bishop gives a taste of the emails, revealing the first and most damaging comments, here.
The Devils Kitchen blog hosts an excellent argument explaining “Why this can't be swept under the carpet”, which gives a superb account of the scientific method and how it has been abused by climate alarmists.
One of the most remarkable statements to emerge during thisfiasco has been from Guardian columnist, George Monbiot. A long time anti-capitalist protester and environmental campaigner, Monbiot never gives a moment’s thought to the views of us deniers, on the basis that we’re all part of some evil conspiracy. Now Monbiot calls for the head of the head of the CRU – Phil Jones – who, Monbiot seems think, has betrayed the cause, and undermines its credibility.
Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.
If you want to read and explore the leaked emails for yourself, they have been compiled into a searchable website here.
Finally, if all this has annoyed you, I urge you to sign the petition at Number 10...
The Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia is a “leading centre” for the investigation of “manmade global warming” and government policy relies on the integrity of these statistics. Several claims have been made: that data was “cherry picked” to make the 20th century temperature rise look exceptional in historical terms; emails suggest the unit has colluded in “tricks” to “hide the decline” in a high profile scientific journal, and this unit has colluded in active, secret and highly political campaigning through the website “realclimate”.
The preparation of climate statistics require many judgements: stations move & sites become surrounded by urban sprawl (urban heating) & a judgement must be made of the size of the offset to apply to the global temperature record. The University accepts most emails are genuine so it appears the Unit has been acting in a highly partisan way incompatible with that of a neutral body preparing and interpreting government data. We call on the PM to suspend all further use of the climate research unit until all pertinent allegations have been investigated and any action (if any) has been taken.
