These are dark times indeed for true believers in the religion of Anthropogenic Global Warming: not only is the empirical evidence going more and more against their Inconvenient Truths, but now there have come revelations of scandal within the walls of one of the Holy Places of the Faith. A hacker broke into the computer systems of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit and stole over 60 megabytes of emails and other documents and released them to the public.
The significance of of these files is that they strongly indicate deliberate fraud and the illegal destruction of data by researchers seeking to bolster the case for AGW. They also speak of plans (at least) to corrupt the peer-review process by smearing skeptical scientists in order to blackball them, thus creating a review process slanted favorably toward research that supports the anthropogenic thesis of global warming and ignores any problems with that research.
James Delingpole of The Telegraph has a good overview of the ethical roaches uncovered by this (let’s be blunt) theft. Let me quote from one of the emails dealing with the corruption of the peer-review process:
“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 !”
Talk like this should mortify anyone concerned for the integrity of science. The peer-review process is crucial to maintaining this integrity. For any scientist to try to game and shape this system in their favor should lead to calling into question the whole body of their research, especially when global-warming alarmists, such as the scientists at the CRU, are demanding governments take extreme measures to fix a problem the scientists claim is incontrovertible fact.
If half of what was revealed is true, then any credibility possessed by the pro-AGW faction in the scientific community, national governments, and the UN is crippled or outright destroyed. The Senate should call an immediate halt to any further consideration its version of the Waxman-Markey bill, passage of which would be disastrous for the US economy, until the truth about these revelations from CRU can be determined.
Besides Delingpole’s article, here are a few other links you’ll want to read to get an idea of the scope of this scandal:
- Pajamas Media says this may be evidence of a real conspiracy to suppress data contradicting AGW.
- Jean S. of Climate Audit explains how a “trick” to cover up unfavorable data worked.
- Andrew Bolt of the Australian Herald-Sun reviews the emails and, while cautious, thinks they are likely genuine. Particularly appalling is what they reveal about the destruction of legally-protected data.
The mind boggles at the possible scope of the fraud revealed today. For the sheer magnitude of its potential effect on the world’s economy, it dwarfs other scandals, such as fake fetal stem cell research. If true, it could be fatal to the Anthropogenic Global Warming movement.
Let’s hope it’s true, then.
LINKS: Others writing on this include Michelle Malkin, Gabriel Malor, Ed Morrissey, Stacy McCain, Climate Skeptic, SBVOR (which calls this the “Watergate of Global Warming”), Sister Toldjah, Big Government, and Blue Crab Boulevard. At Power Line, attorney John Hinderaker looks at the emails and thinks they reflect not so much an active conspiracy as a bunker mentality among true believers.
(hat tip: Watt’s Up With That?)