How important, really, is the big flap over the big leak of the confidential files of the CRU (University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit) when it comes to yet another scam in the effort to pull of the biggest hoax and worldwide rip-off in the history of the human race, also known as AWG or anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming? It’s huge, very huge.
In terms of getting those currently in power around the globe to either come to their senses or at least start sticking to the truth, it would be of no importance at all, had the scientists not been caught. If the truth were held in anything but utter contempt by the vast majority of global warming activists and climactic power brokers, the entire scandal would not only never have occurred, the behavior it has revealed wouldn’t have been in the least bit necessary to begin with.
But for those who have been skeptical of the whole global warming myth for years, including world class scientists who have had their reputations and careers impugned and nearly destroyed, while knowing of intentional deception that was difficult to prove, it matters deeply and offers proof of what they have been saying all along. It also matters deeply to every citizen of the world as our freedom, our livelihoods, our ability to make informed decisions and the futures of ourselves and our descendents depend on the outcome of truth vs. global deception.
What has everyone’s tail feathers all chewed up is that some of the vital truth on climate change issues, in the form of CRU files containing, according to British journalist James Delingpole, “1079 emails and 72 documents,” has spilled out so publicly just as roughly 8,000 anticipated attendees were revving up their private jets to head to the United Nations Climate Change Convention in Copenhagen.
The Kyoto Protocol is due to expire in 2012 and the purpose of this convention is to replace it with an even more hideous individual rights destroying, privacy destroying, business and job destroying, civilization destroying Copenhagen Protocol.
From here we have to tread a bit backward to follow the MPG (money-power-greed) trail back to these “scientists.” Many people have forgotten, if they ever knew, that Nobel Knothead Al Gore shared his 2007 “peace prize” with another winner, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Mr. Delingpole offers this bread-crumb path for our perusal, “CRU, established in 1990… is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.”
And, according to the official website of the Copenhagen Climate Council, “The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change.”
So we have four official sources of global temperature data, all presumably charged with providing “an objective source of information about climate change,” and the people behind at least one of them are now known to be a pack of liars who deliberately altered and fudged their data and used their positions to silence and publicly discredit the opinions of other scientists who dared to disagree with them, including seeking to have these dissenting opinions barred from peer-reviewed scientific journals and the remainder of the peer review process.
For non-scientists, this means that the work of any scientist who disagreed with the AWG Nazis, for most practical purposes, did not officially exist. The emails discuss, among other things, how to tamper with data and get away with it by whatever sort of manipulation, deletion or outright misrepresentation was necessary. Their efforts to silence the views of opposing scientists were the equivalent of disbarring an attorney for representing the opposition before he has had the chance to ever appear in a courtroom. In baseball, this would be declaring a “shutout” before a single inning has been played.
To add insult to injury, they have forced a term like “scientific consensus” into the public lexicon without permitting sufficient debate or open discussion to determine whether any such thing existed. From Wikipedia, “Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the process of publication, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review.” If scientists are denied access to the normal professional pathways in the peer review process, they essentially have no voice in any scientific consensus that is reached.
When large groups of scientists, all of whom hold a dissenting viewpoint, are excluded from the entire process of a debate, there is not only no consensus, there is no science. They are disadvantaged in hiring, the writing and selection of textbooks, the teaching of classes and the publication of papers. And these scientists who dared to even question the opposition were then called “deniers” and far, far worse.
What is being denied here makes the issue of AGW, climate change or whatever they call it next, pale in comparison. In every walk of life, we rely on certain groups of professionals to be the experts in their fields of endeavor. We also rely on certain social structures like professional associations, reputations, laws and even the internet to help us root out the rotten apples and send them packing.
But we have now been told that this process no longer applies to science; that certain individuals, even those who have no training in their selected field of supposed expertise, like Al Gore, are so far above any means or method of accountability that anyone who dares to disagree with or even question them, or the integrity of their “credentials,” has no right to speak or even be heard by those who want to listen and hear.
We cannot accept this; we must not accept this. Whatever the outcome of any debate on climate change, or the environment, this is a debate that must be held to the highest possible standards of rigorous honesty that human beings are capable of.
We were told that the endless investigations of Clarence Thomas, accused but never found guilty of sexual harassment by a former subordinate only after he was nominated to the Supreme Court, were necessitated by the “seriousness of the charge,” a phrase that will hopefully haunt those who deliberately mislead the public to the end of their days.
The debate on AGW will never be totally resolved unless and until it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be happening, as proving that it could not possibly be happening is almost impossible. That is the way the scientific method operates and it has functioned pretty well so far; at least no one has yet come up with a better way.
But there are basic rules for following this method; they are accepted by scientists all over the world and there is consensus on that. Wikipedia did a pretty good job of summing up the highly relevant part of the process and it reads thus: “Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them.”
In this particular case, the data is historical and there is reasonable debate as to the most appropriate ways to use and interpret this data and, even more importantly, to use this data to create computer models intended to predict future trends, which are unknown. However, for any of this process to take place in any believable manner, the final sentence adds the following, “This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.” Italics are theirs.
The giant flap, the big leak leaving embarrassing wet spots all over the place and placing the validity of the entire AWG argument in deep jeopardy is the obvious, and now apparently well-documented, presence of efforts by “leading scientists” on the global-warming-is-terribly-real side of the argument using every subterfuge they could muster in order to hamper the scientific methodology from taking place and limit disclosure at every opportunity.
Documents, archives, data and full disclosure were all subjected to tampering and attempts to destroy relevant information, not by a few rogue scientists trying to get some additional grant money, but in a conspiracy which was intended to go all the way to Copenhagen and forever alter the life of every human being alive or yet to be born.