Updates on the Climategate scandal: it's worse than most Americans know

There’s been some serious updates to the ongoing collapse of the AGW industry that have come so quickly I’ve not had time to bring them all up. If you’re interested in this stuff – and, given what the AGW set wants to do to your standard of living, you should be – you really need to be following Watts Up With That? both at their blog and on Twitter.

Read the posts from the past week over there and you’ll be treated to the following information very likely ignored or soft-pedaled by your local MSM:

  • The IPCC report talking about how the glaciers in the Himalayas were all going to be melted away by 2035 – you know, based on peer-reviewed scientific consensus – was actually based on a single person’s completely unproven and untested commentary given in an interview on a phone call. Absolutely no peer review or any actual science was involved.
  • The “scientist” behind that aforementioned report knew full well that the comment wasn’t peer reviewed. He used it in his report anyway for the express purpose of manipulating policy decisions in various governments. Read that again: he knew what he was saying wasn’t true and he lied to get your government to do things his way.
  • Following on the revelation of those 1st two items, various climate research groups, NASA included, have been either deleting or “correcting” their own internal reports to remove references to that IPCC report.
  • The UN predictions of increased natural disasters owing to global warming were based on more reporting by scientists who had not done the real science and which was withdrawn by those scientists because they felt the evidence wasn’t strong enough. Note that the withdrawal wasn’t considered important enough by the UN to actually change their own predictions.
  • The IPCC report referenced in my 1st point above contained references to non-peer-reviewed papers published by the World Wildlife Fund, an organization who explicitly states that they don’t publish a peer-reviewed journal. That didn’t stop the IPCC from using their reports as support for their conclusions at all.

As I’ve repeated stated, we need the real science to determine what the correct move is in terms of climate change. That’s assuming any “move” is even possible. So-called “scientists” like these and the supporters of AGW theory who push for massive changes to our economy with no real evidence to back up their claims are damaging our ability to make rational decisions. We should stop with the hysteria and re-engage the scientific inquiry and we should do so as quickly as we can.