THE FALLOUT FROM Climategate was disturbing enough: suspect adjustments of data,
exclusion of dissenting views, illegal destruction of information and
intimidation of journal editors. But they all had one ugly common denominator —
the corruption of legitimate science.
early 2009, the Science Council in Great Britain came up with a "new"
definition of science: "The pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the
natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence."
Wikipedia offers this:
"The methods of scientific
research include the generation of hypotheses about how
phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under
controlled conditions. Scientists are also expected to publish their
information so other scientists can do similar experiments to double-check
their conclusions. The results of this process enable better understanding of
past events, and better ability to predict future events of the same kind as
those that have been tested."
The revealed e-mails
and documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia
undermined every step of the scientific process.
No one knows where
the global warming hypothesis started, but rather than test it under controlled
conditions, the scientists controlled the conditions to support their
hypothesis. One of the best-known Climategate e-mails, from CRU Director Phil
Jones, talked about how he used Penn State University scientist Michael Mann's
"trick" to "hide the decline." On a chart, Mann cut short records of tree-ring
data at the year 1960, because that set showed a temperature decline after that
year. Instead, Mann (and Jones) overlaid instrumental data from 1960 onward,
making an apples vs. oranges comparison.
Elsewhere, as Marc
Sheppard at American Thinker discovered,¹ underlying code in programs revealed
efforts to "exclude proxy data that demonstrated poor correlations with local
Simply, the code was an attempt to remove numbers that did not support the
scientists' global warming hypothesis.
problem was the fact that CRU scientists — especially Jones — apparently
plotted to withhold or destroy raw data so others could not test the global
warming alarmists' theory. In addition, the research of many skeptical
scientists was excluded from publication in peer-reviewed journals, thanks to
efforts by the same conspirators. These elites were the gatekeepers of input to
the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports - which is
considered the authoritative source on global warming. Independent
double-checking was thwarted.
As a result, this
warped "understanding of past events" compromised climate science's "ability to
predict future events." Climategate showed that global warming concerns were
not the product of science but of activism.
Paul Chesser is a special correspondent for The
Sheppard, "Understanding Climategate's Hidden Decline," American Thinker,
Dec. 6, 2009, http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html
(accessed Jan. 13, 2010).