Originally published in the Hawaii Reporter
- By Michael R. Fox Ph.D., -
One need not spend a working lifetime in science and engineering to appreciate the breath-taking scientific corruption now flooding from the fetid debris of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) scandal at the University of East Anglia in England. The release of about 3000 pages of CRU emails and documents has exposed levels of scientific corruption which would make a Trofim Lysenko blush (http://tinyurl.com/dmo88). Others forms of CRU corruption are more sophisticated.
We must also note that those highly advertised and un-named 2500 IPCC “scientists” who approved of the work done at the IPCC, went missing, did not properly do their review and oversight jobs, and were no where to be seen in these records. In fact we had earlier learned that even the “2500 IPCC scientists” was just another IPCC hoax (http://tinyurl.com/pwexub).
Since part of the scandal involves the manipulation, massaging, correcting, even omitting climate data, the non-scientist reader needs to appreciate a crucial part of serious science. This is the preservation of the original data. We learned this in high school and college where we were taught to keep log books, laboratory books and other notes. Whatever else happened in the progress of the science project or a new hypothesis, these notes were always to be kept in their original form. This is basic practice in science and engineering, and helps support the basics of any new technology or hypothesis.
And of crucial importance is the use of the original data by other teams of experts who may attempt to replicate the original findings. Replication is a vitally important part of serious science and normally welcomed by the original authors. But not with the global warmers.
We have now learned from the London Times online that the original climate data retained at the CRU was dumped. It doesn’t exist anymore so that replication of the IPCC work at the CRU is no longer possible (http://tinyurl.com/yzvyoxh). What has been retained are “data” which have been modified, massaged, corrected, and omitted in the CRU’s continuing attempts to have their computer modeled temperature projections match those actually measured.
Dr. Don Easterbrook (http://tinyurl.com/yav3omyl) recently pointed out such practices were routinely violated at the CRU. See here (http://tinyurl.com/ybvhabb) and here (http://tinyurl.com/yav3omy)
Easterbrook points out that “legitimate scientists do not doctor data, delete data they don’t like, hide data they don’t want seen, hijack the peer review process, personally attack other scientists whose views differ from theirs, send fraudulent data to the IPCC that is used to perpetuate the greatest hoax in the history science, provide false data to further legislation on climate change that will result in huge profits for corrupt lobbyists and politicians, and tell outright lies about scientific data”. All of these unprofessional practices were revealed in the disclosed email and documents.
The CRU email fallout during the week of Nov. 23, spread rapidly. Many of these findings have been listed at ecotretas (http://tinyurl.com/ye95k92) as well as at Climate Depot (http://www.climatedepot.com/).
Listed at ecotretas (http://tinyurl.com/ye95k92) are the following categories of CRU transgressions: Using the wrong data and practices, fixing the data, deleting the data, wrong-doing, hiding information, peer-review interference, and questionable financial practices. These are not the habits and practices of scientific and engineering professionals.
The release of the CRU emails and documents indicates a massive global warming scandal had been operating at the CRU and elsewhere for nearly 2 decades. The purpose of all the scandal was apparently to give a scientific patina to global warming and the presumptive cause of it all, CO2 emitted from the developed nations (code word for the United States).
The purpose of the IPCC and the CRU was never to determine a better understanding of how our climate works. It was never to identify all of the forces at work affecting the climate, their magnitudes, their signs-positive or negative, their interactions and their variations, all of which drive our climate, which in turn would make the developed nations the source of all damages done in the 3rd world, which in turn would make the case for restitution to these nations for many trillions of dollars.
It cannot be stressed too strongly that the people involved with this CRU scandal are very big, powerful, and influential people from the CRU and the US. They provide scientific cover for some of the largest and most costly attacks on the United States. The concept of limiting CO2 emissions from American sources is a ruse in light of the fact that the hypothesis that man-made CO2 is causing global warming remains unproven. There is absolutely no need for either carbon taxes or cap and trade legislation.
The fact that nuclear energy, which is rapidly expanding around the world, is not discussed as an energy option by these same agencies also indicates that we are dealing with less than honorable people. They seem to be more interested in crippling our economy through energy shortages rather than building large sources of domestic, non-polluting, viable, low-cost electrical energy for our nation.
Some of the emails are especially instructive. Below is the text of an email by Kevin Trenberth to a colleague: (it’s dated quite recently October 14, 2009). Keep in mind that Trenberth is as hardcore a global warmer as there is.
Trenberth asks a colleague:
”How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!” The entire issue of global warming depends upon a keen knowledge of the global distributions, amounts, and flows, which the CRU and IPCC have never shown.
Trenberth’s statement above is extremely significant, as was observed by Steve Milloy of http://www.junkscience.com on 11/30/09. Milloy correctly concludes “It really invalidates climate models since they are allegedly driven by the global energy budget and how energy moves through the system. If we can not account for what is happening in the climate system we can not model it nor is there any basis for climate model "projections", "predictions" or whatever you want to call the fairytales released by Gore, the IPCC or anyone else. The defense concedes, don’t you think?
The “leak” of this damaging information at the very least should minimize the unfair attacks against those who speak out against the so-called “scientific consensus” and enable true science and real evidence to determine the truth.
Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., is a nuclear scientist and a science and energy resource for Hawaii Reporter and a science analyst for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, is retired and now lives in Eastern Washington. He has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field.
He has also taught chemistry and energy at the University level. His interest in the communications of science has led to several communications awards, hundreds of speeches, and many appearances on television and talk shows.
He can be reached via email at mailto:mike@foxreport.org