As you have likely heard, an inside whistleblower at the UK’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) has released an immense amount of data containing emails and documents on to the internet. Some reports say 60 megabytes and some say 160, but the result is the same.
The believers in the Church of Anthropogenic Climate Change are circling their wagons in an attempt to mitigate the damage, with Michael “discredited hockey stick graph” Mann even trying to go Clintonion with his redefinition of the word “trick”, but they are not convincing anyone.
A Washington Times editorial lays the truth bare:
Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and professor Michael E. Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Mr. Jones talked to Mr. Mann about the “trick of adding in the real temps to each series … to hide the decline [in temperature].”
Mr. Mann admitted that he was party to this conversation and lamely explained to the New York Times that “scientists often used the word ‘trick’ to refer to a good way to solve a problem ‘and not something secret.’ ” Though the liberal New York newspaper apparently buys this explanation, we have seen no benign explanation that justifies efforts by researchers to skew data on so-called global-warming “to hide the decline.” Given the controversies over the accuracy of Mr. Mann’s past research, it is surprising his current explanations are accepted so readily.
The Believers are trying to spin this as an innocuous misunderstanding, but as I discussed in a previous post, that spin is viciously undercut by their discussions about hiding data from Freedom of Information Requests:
There is a lot of damning evidence about these researchers concealing information that counters their bias. In another exchange, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann: “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone” and, “We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.” Mr. Jones further urged Mr. Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) controversial assessment report (ARA): “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re [the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report]?”
In another e-mail, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann, professor Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona and professor Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: “I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!”
At one point, Mr. Jones complained to another academic, “I did get an email from the [Freedom of Information] person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails.” He also offered up more dubious tricks of his trade, specifically that “IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on.” Another professor at the Climate Research Unit, Tim Osborn, discussed in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that otherwise would be seen in the results. Mr. Mann sent Mr. Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he was sending shouldn’t be shown to others because the data support critics of global warming.
Repeatedly throughout the e-mails that have been made public, proponents of global-warming theories refer to data that has been hidden or destroyed. Only e-mails from Mr. Jones’ institution have been made public, and with his obvious approach to deleting sensitive files, it’s difficult to determine exactly how much more information has been lost that could be damaging to the global-warming theocracy and its doomsday forecasts.
An independent observer would have to agree that people with nothing to hide are not likely to be running around conspiring about ways to hide data from FOIA requests.
Like Al Gore, these guys are getting money based upon the “sky is falling” results of their questionable research. Like Al Gore, it would seem that they are not at all concerned with truth if it stands in the way of their propaganda and their political goals.
One side story here: the initial response by the New York Times involved a typical spin, claiming that they should not print the data since the emails were potentially illegally obtained. Can you smell the hypocrisy from a “news” outlet that never hesitates to publish classified information if it hurts national security? Does anyone still doubt that the NYT is simply a newsletter for the social democrats?