An Inconvenient Truth...What's up Al?

Climate Change Deceit Reveals Inconvenient Truth

Monday, November 30, 2009 12:39 PM

By: Geoff Metcalf

"One of the common failings among honorable people is a failure to appreciate how thoroughly dishonorable some other people can be, and how dangerous it is to trust them." — Thomas Sowell

The brouhaha over the recent epiphany regarding junk science and climate change duplicity is a big deal.

Science is supposed to be all about facts, evidence, and proof. The scientific method that kids are taught at an early age is explained as “a method of discovering knowledge about the natural world based in making falsifiable predictions (hypotheses), testing them empirically, and developing peer-reviewed theories that best explain the known data.” It is not supposed to be a sporting event of "us" versus "them" or team competition.

Reportedly, computer hackers obtained some 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit, a university in England. The e-mails were exchanges between researchers and policy advocates who shared a similar gospel according to them. Shockingly, authorities were discussing the “destruction and hiding of data that did not support global-warming claims.” HELL-O!

Protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, exchanges about “the trick of adding in the real temps to each series . . . to hide the decline (in temperature),” is way egregious. Professor Phil Jones, head of the Climate Research Unit and professor Michael E. Mann at Penn State are now tap dancing.

Mann, in an effort to defend the indefensible, told The New York Times, “Scientists often use the word ‘trick’ to refer to a good way to solve a problem ‘and not something secret.’ Yeah, right!

There is a boatload of damning evidence about concealing information that does not coincide with the gospel according to Al Gore.

Jones went so far as to encourage Mann to delete e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s controversial assessment report.

The rats are scrambling big-time. Jones told Mann, Professor Malcolm Hughes at University of Arizona, and Professor Raymond Bradley of UMass/Amherst, “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 U.K. has a Freedom of Information Act!” Too late pal!

Another co-conspirator at CRU, Professor Tim Osborn, was told by Mann to hide data because it supports critics of global warming.

Hackers are reprehensible criminals. However, their sins pale in comparison to the intentional deceit of lofty academics conspiring to delete data that does not conform to their fantasy hypothesis. Although we only know of the CRU e-mails and don’t know what we don’t know about the broader conspiracy, we do know that facts, evidence, and documentation contradicting the global warming theocracy have intentionally been destroyed, altered, and massaged.

This scandal is scientific fraud of epic proportions.

• Conspiracy

• Collusion

• Illegal destruction of embarrassing data

• Organized resistance to disclosure

• Manipulation of data

• Private acknowledgment of flaws

I’ve been grousing about global warming for more than a decade. Last year I was debating the issue with a professor from the University of North Carolina and quoted an interview I had done years ago with Dr. Fred Singer (http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/qa/19633.html). It was a long interview and rich in data that debunked the gospel according to Al. The professor’s refutation consisted of blowing off Singer as “one of those.”

Talk about those who don’t want to be confused with facts that contradict a preconceived opinion and prejudice, there it is.

I told Dr.Singer “I’m getting the feeling they can manipulate data to get the results they want? He replied, “I don't think they quite do that.” Now we learn, gosh-oh-gee-golly, that is exactly what they have been doing.

The CRU goat rope reveals a long series of communications covering “how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process.”

CRU’s researchers have been exposed as having cherry-picked data in order to support their untrue claim that “global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millennium.” CRU also, “in contravention of all acceptable behavior in the international scientific community, conspired for years, withholding data from researchers that did not conform to their agenda.

One of the most rabid propagandists of the global warming theocracy is George Monbiot. Even he, albeit begrudgingly, concedes he should have been more skeptical. Even he now admits the science needs to be rechecked and fully vetted.

“It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The e-mails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.”

Monbiot, to his credit, notes that “skepticism is the essential disposition of our craft.” He concludes that “the opposite of skeptical is gullible.

Skepticism is the essential disposition of our craft, yet too many journalists have abandoned it. Remember: the opposite of skeptical is gullible.”

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.