Oh my, it will be interesting to see the wagons get circled on this one. The e-mails hacked from the University of East Anglia’s Hadley Climatic Research Centre tell an interesting story. A quick review of the analysis already done show that there was a lot more politics than science going on, and of the science going on, some of it was very questionable indeed.
How will the legacy media circle the wagons on this one? How about our local media?
Let’s review what Clay Evans said in a recent Daily Camera global warming editorial titled Global warming? We better believe it…
Certainty is indeed hard to come by. But anyone who chooses to “believe” that global warming is, as one U.S. Senator has put it, a “hoax,” or at least that its dangers have been overblown, must also accept that they stand against science.
They must also accept that the consequences of their beliefs, if they hold sway, are nothing less than one selfish generation bequeathing a brutal future and disaster-ridden planet upon its children and (if there are any) grandchildren.
And it’s now becoming abundantly clear that the GW leadership were playing politics and religion and not science.
For example, this e-mail snippit is one of many examined by Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air…
From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
***
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.***
But the data are surely wrong! You really can’t make this stuff up. I suppose it’s possible the data is wrong, and I’m sure that Clay will track this down, but the problem is the attitude.
Morrisey expounds…
Do scientists use data to test theories, or do they use theories to test data? Scientists will claim the former, but here we have scientists who cling to the theory so tightly that they reject the data. That’s not science; it’s religious belief.
(bold is mine – ed)That sure does sound familiar, see my critical posting of Clay’s editorial titled “Sermon on Global Warming“.
I look forward to a line of defense similar to the fact that since we aren’t climate experts we can’t possibly understand the intent of the e-mails. How high of a pedestal do these scientists deserve to be on?
Here are some other links to follow for inquiring minds:
Do hacked e-mails show global-warming fraud?
The Alarmists Do “Science”: A Case Study (recommend). Which concludes:
On the contrary, the conclusion an observer is likely to draw from the CRU archive is that the climate alarmists are making up the science as they go along and are fitting facts to reach a predetermined conclusion rather than objectively seeking after truth. What they are doing is politics, not science. When I was in law school, this story was told about accountants: A CEO is going to hire a new accountant and summons a series of candidates. He asks each applicant, “What is two plus two?” The first two candidates answer, “Four.” They don’t get the job. The third responds, “What do you want it to be?” He gets hired. The climate alarmists’ attitude toward data appears to me much the same as that fictional accountant’s attitude toward arithmetic.
Lots of information at the Bishop Hill blog. This posting in particular has one or two sentence summary’s of various e-mails with links to the actual e-mails.
