If the data doesn’t fit – just fake it!
By now we have all heard about ClimateGate – oh, wait, perhaps some that primarily watch network news haven’t. Well, in brief, it is only the biggest scientific scam the world has seen. To small of a story for the network news to report on!
It appears that emails and other documents were ‘hacked’ at one of the leading climate research centers. Here is a quote from this research center:
The Global Carbon Project study concludes that unless emissions are substantially reduced, the result would be a rise in average global temperature by nearly 10 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. That is on par with previous worst-case scenarios outlined by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Scientists have estimated that temperature spikes above 2 degrees could have disastrous consequences, including large rises in sea level, droughts and stronger storms.
One of the authors of the study, Professor Corinne Le Quere of the University of East Anglia, says the conclusions raise the stakes for delegates to the Copenhagen gathering, who will try to hammer out a successor to the Kyoto Accords that committed signatory governments to emission reduction goals.
Al Gore, international ‘global warming’ treaties, Cap and Trade legislation, are all based off the work of climatoligists that have now been discovered to have conspired to manilupate the data, and to make the data fit a particualr theary – namely, Man Made Global Warming.
An few excerpts from some of the emails:
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
“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.”
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
And yet, in light of this, what does President Obama do? Call for hearings? Thoroughly investigate? Take his time to come up with a strategy? Nope. President Obama flies to Copenhagen in December to hold climate talks – talks based on scientific research that has now been clearly shown to be tainted and falsified data.
Can we all now say “An Inconvenient Truth?”
