This is a repost of an article we posted back in November 2011. It was the second post we made about deceptive practices and fraud indicated by emails taken from Climategate 1.0 (2009) and a batch of 5000 (2011) exchanged between climate scientists connected to the United Nations, other government entities and private businesses. The posts do not paint pretty pictures for the global warming and climate change “scientists,” as they continue to kick the can down the road of global climate deception. So,we are posting this piece again after yesterday’s post to demonstrate that the UN, their panel of scientists and folks such as Al Gore just do not care for the truth, or won’t admit it, when it comes to their livelihood and their faux wrapped science.
Here’s The Repost:
More Global Warming Twists Revealed
More e-mails have surfaced purporting to show that climate scientists “reveal” using false and/or incomplete information. This must be such a disappointment to all those folks in global “swarming” communities; especially those trying to convince everyone of the validity of fake processes and hidden lies. The report we’ll focus on today will be one from FORBES in an article by James Taylor, a contributor to Forbes:
A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.
The article jumps right into what the newly released e-mails seem to show, and it has to be said that followers of the scientists involved, and supporters of the “absolute truth” of global warming will be struck frigid by revelations found in the e-mails:
Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.
In addition to the above, the author of the article quoted in this blog accuses the actors of (that is, those acting as real climate scientists) have little or no compunction toward using deception in their publications; nor do they appear to suffer any guilt in impugning the reputation of their detractors:
Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.
“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.
Not only does Jones appear to be supportive of hiding information and deceiving skeptics; he also has no problem with bringing a United States agency (Department of Energy) into the conspiracy:
“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”
The original Climategate emails contained similar evidence of destroying information and data that the public would naturally assume would be available according to freedom of information principles. “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?” Jones wrote to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email released in Climategate 1.0. “Keith will do likewise. … We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!”
These people, i.e., Mann, Jones, and some others seem to place themselves above the law and above common decency in their quest to appear adequate among their peers … instead they come out as pompous fleas, contemplating the rape of an elephant, through their overblown imaginations:
The new emails also reveal the scientists’ attempts to politicize the debate and advance predetermined outcomes.
“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment.
“I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I
don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,” wrote Mann in another newly released email.
A further email reveals a desire for outright destruction of one skeptic through investigation of the individual by an “investigative journalist:”
“I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose” skeptical scientist Steve McIntyre, Mann writes in another newly released email.
These new emails add weight to Climategate 1.0 emails revealing efforts to politicize the scientific debate. For example, Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, authored a Climategate 1.0 email asserting that his fellow Climategate scientists “must get rid of” the editor for a peer-reviewed science journal because he published some papers contradicting assertions of a global warming crisis.
More than revealing misconduct and improper motives, the newly released emails additionally reveal frank admissions of the scientific shortcomings of global warming assertions.
We are going to stop here, but you can read the rest of Taylor’s article and any related articles by following links found below. If you wonder what all of the above has to do with the Sandia Tea Party and other Tea Parties, you only have to think about our desire to hold government spending and waste down and to have a government and affiliated agencies that are transparent and not politicized. Folks from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (to name two such conjoined agencies) do not fulfill either want.
Read The Rest Of Taylor’s Article
Related articles
- ClimateGate the Sequel: More Proof of the Scam (dakotavoice.com)
- ClimateGate 2.0: 5,000 New Emails Confirm Pattern of Deception and Collusion by Alarmists (papundits.wordpress.com)
- Climategate 2.0: Jones wants Nobel certificate suitable for framing (junkscience.com)
- Climategate 2.0 – From Russia with Love? (rakmeister.wordpress.com)
- A new Climategate scandal, familiar cast of characters (opinion.financialpost.com)
- Global warning: New Climategate leaks (rt.com)
- Climategate 2.0? (hotair.com)
- Uh oh, global warming loons: here comes Climategate II! (blogs.telegraph.co.uk)
- Climategate 2.0 (crazyjew.wordpress.com)
- Study: Is Climate Change Less Severe Than Feared? (ecocentric.blogs.time.com)
- Climategate 2.0: Ducking confrontation on ‘Great Global Warming Swindle’ (junkscience.com)
