http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/



If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start
dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global
Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and
quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at
the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU)
and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet.
(Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72
documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have
preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this
scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged
emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists
pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly
illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance
to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in
their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of
John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the
Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent
of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the
way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed
evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged
emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed
the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess
up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious
practices such as:

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real
temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd
from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

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.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family
crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have
his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted
to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm
Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen
NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available
nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather
than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/
regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the
putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean
reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications
discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer
review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in
which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank,
whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not
publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a
solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I
think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate
peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in
the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers
in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or
request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the
editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing
more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome
editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The
responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a
few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words
with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to
discuss in Nice !”

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story
up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie”
– Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data
in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had
risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the
last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in
contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international
scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers
it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU,
established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body
which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is
one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by
the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin
of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course.
In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and
grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media.
And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist
activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane
Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding
because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you
take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant
to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher
taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s
Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view is
now also the majority view.

Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood
(and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are
too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in
terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s
credibility which is never likely to recover.