ClimateGate. That has a nice ring to it.
Writing over at The American, Jay Richards has some thoughts on the continuing story of the leaked documents from the Climate Change crowd.
Several troubling themes have emerged so far (h/t to “Jeff C” in comments at the Air Vent):
1. Data manipulation: Several times the scientists discuss ways to massage and cherry-pick data and spin presentations to give the strongest impression of warming, and to downplay contrary evidence—just as they have been suspected of doing.
2. Evading Freedom of Information inquiries: In many emails the scientists are clearly colluding to avoid releasing correspondence and data that they are legally obligated to release. They discuss deleting emails after being directed by officials not to do so.
3. Manipulating peer review: They discuss how to blackball scientists who don’t tow the orthodox line, get journal editors fired who allow “skeptical” papers to be published, how to destroy the reputation of journals that allow such papers to be published, and how to prevent “contrarian” research from being included in UN reports. Since the catastrophist crowd speaks so loudly and insistently about “peer-reviewed” research, it’s stunning to find out what this really means in the scandal of contemporary climate research.
Though it is not mentioned in this discussion, one aspect of the debate has always bothered me. Proponents of anthrogenic climate change like to point out that some skeptics receive funding from energy companies, accusing the skeptics of skewing their research in order to please their benefactors. However, isn’t that a two-way street? Given that the believers also get funding based upon their results, and that Al Gore stands to make millions from Cap and Trade, should that same logic not apply to the Michael Mann’s and Al Gore’s in this debate?
I submit that they cannot have it both ways.
These leaked emails, which now look to be the result of an insider whistleblower, are the smoking gun that skeptics have been looking for. The True Believers are not likely to be swayed.