A Compendium: Unsettled Science and Scope of ‘Climategate’
An excellent article analyzing the climate gate scandals and the lessons we must learn from UNsettled science by Caleb Howe over at Red State. It’s a must-read. For reals.
It wasn’t science. It was a club. No, a church. And if you weren’t a member, you were the enemy. Skepticism had become heresy, and to speak it aloud was the fastest way alienate yourself from polite society. “Consensus” was the new “evidence,” and to stand outside that consensus was to self-identify as a hater of the planet and all who walk upon it. A sad state of affairs even then. But now?
Many of you have, by now, heard about the infamous “climategate” emails. But you may not be aware of the real scope of the scandals currently rocking the world of AGW. Indeed, if Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey were not apparently the world’s most devoted fan of the British press, I might not be either. The IPCC’s report relied on many pillars for it’s foundation. Those pillars have been crumbling at a stunning rate over the last few months, thanks largely to an investigative UK press. It’s far more serious than the American media is willing to tell you. In fact, the left at large is doubling down, down-playing the emails and simply pretending the other scandals don’t even exist. Because the science is settled, you see. Consensus has been reached. The details don’t really matter anymore.
Only they do.
The data upon which this claim is largely based has been undone by the Climategate scandal. The damning emails show deliberate manipulation of data to produce the desired “increases in global average air and ocean temperature.” What’s worse, Phil Jones, the scientist at the epicenter of this scandal, “lost” all the original data, which might explain why he has ignored repeated Freedom of Information requests. Jones’ non-peer-reviewed findings are crucial to the famous “hockey stick” graph that alarmed Al Gore into an Oscar. Additionally, the emails show a disdain or the very notion of peer-review as well as active conspiracy to suppress dissenting points of view. And that’s not all.A study that was peer-reviewed and recently published calls into question even the data we do have at hand.