The last 48 hours have seen a most amazing situation revealed regarding the highly controversial topic of global warming. As reported over at Watts Up With That? and continued in various locations around the ‘sphere, servers ar the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia were hacked and a tremendous amount of data – files and e-mails – was taken and leaked to the Internet. The documents show that several of the leading lights of the global warming advocacy – such luminaries as Michael Mann, James Hansen, Phil Jones, and more – engaged in efforts to mask data that did not support their preferred conclusion and they knew full well that’s what they were doing. From John Hinderaker at Power Line has undertaken the project of going through all 62 megabytes (compressed) of data that was posted on the public FTP site. His initial assessment:
Before the documents disappeared from that location, several people had downloaded them and posted them in other locations. I downloaded all of the material earlier today and have begun to review it. The emails are stunning. They are authored by many of the leading figures in the global warming movement: Michael Mann, James Hansen, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Stephen Schneider, and others. They are remarkably candid; these individuals talk to each other with the knowledge that they are among friends.
The emails I’ve reviewed so far do not suggest that these scientists are perpetrating a knowing and deliberate hoax. On the contrary, they are true believers. I don’t doubt that they are sincerely convinced–in fact, fanatically so–that human activity is warming the earth. But the emails are disturbing nonetheless. What they reveal, more than anything, is a bunker mentality. These pro-global warming scientists see themselves as under siege, and they view AGW skeptics as bitter enemies.
Emphasis mine. I suppose that depends on what you consider a knowing and deliberate hoax. If, by that, you mean that the persons suggesting something know it to be false then I would agree – they’re clearly not of the opinion that AGW is a falsehood. But that only lets them off on the “hoax” part. The e-mails show their efforts to conceal data not supportive of their position are quite deliberate and they know full well they are hiding the facts and, thus, obscuring the truth. References are made in some of the e-mails to performing “tricks” on the data and adjusting it to “hide the decline” in temperature trends. Concern is expressed over the fact that trends aren’t matching their theoretical models and desires are expressed to find ways to “reduce” “blip[s]” in order to affect global mean temperatures.
This is not science when people deliberately seek to alter the data to support their desired outcomes. It’s politics, plain and simple and that’s not supposed to be what these people are engaging in. In fact, they are quite loud about their disdain for “politicizing the issue.” And yet, here we are with over 10 years of data showing them doing exactly that. Which raises the question in my mind of what they’ve managed to successfully “hide” and perform “tricks” on without being detected.
Were this to happen to some group of scientists expressing skepticism over AGW – that it was shown they were engaged in a pattern of data manipulation and obscuring of the facts in order to support their conclusions – I have no doubts that the reaction among the global warming faithful would be loud, continuous, and outraged. As well it should be – I’d likely be among those offended by such an event. When those who set themselves up as scientists interested in illuminating the facts so we can know the truth of the world engage in this kind of deception, we all suffer. The debate over what to do and when to initiate action suffers. And the outcome we hope for suffers. It’s inexcusable for people who call themselves scientists to do this. I wish the AGW advocates would consider it that way, too, but I’m not going to hold my breath.
It’s also inexcusable that so-called unbiased media would choose to virtually ignore such an event. Fox News didn’t ignore it, but you won’t find the story over at CNN or MSNBC. Why is that? Because those 2 organizations are in the tank for AGW groups, perhaps? You can’t prove that assessment false based on their silence on a story reported this widely in the ‘sphere and in the foreign press.
These scientists – and the East Anglia CRU, for that matter – have been shown to be untrustworthy in their science on global warming. What they report now can no more be considered conclusive (or even accurate) than any anonymous website on the Internet. Transparency in investigating this matter and a complete exposure of all of their data to widespread review are the only fixes for their credibility meltdown. I hope they move to make the repairs and do so quickly.
Update: Finally getting some wider coverage, this story’s now being reported in the Washington Post.