As NewsBusters reported Friday, hacked e-mail messages to and from folks with direct access to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show a concerted effort on the part of these powerful scientists to manipulate temperature data in order to exaggerate average global temperatures.
As Beck pointed out Monday, those involved also conspired to prevent viewpoints counter to their own from getting published in scientific journals or becoming part of IPCC reports.
"Think about that next time you hear about, oh, 'the consensus,' and 'the science is settled,' and Al Gore is bragging about the peer reviewed journals" (video embedded below the fold with transcript, h/t Anthony Watts via Bob Ferguson):
GLENN BECK, HOST: A potentially major scandal is unfolding after someone released thousands of e-mails and documents sent between prominent scientists of global warming debate. The New York Times has verified that these e-mails are legitimate which wasn't too hard because some of them were written by and to one of their reporters. More on that here in just a second. But first let's start with the science that has been so settled for all these years. What do these guys say behind closed doors about their so-called bullet-proof consensus? Well, Kevin Trenberth, he's a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He wrote, "The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it's a travesty that we can't." Incorrect data? Inadequate systems? Yeah. Travesty, pretty good word for it.
How about Phil Jones, head of of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, "I have just completed Mike's nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years to hide the decline." Yes, he is talking about a trick that another scientist previously used in a peer reviewed journal to apparently hide the decline in temperatures. Incredible. But it doesn't stop there.
How about when scientific journals published material that Jones didn't like? Quote "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report...Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is" end quote. Think about that next time you hear about, oh, "the consensus," and "the science is settled," and Al Gore is bragging about the peer reviewed journals
Now what happens to a peer reviewed paper when they disagree with what gets published? Quote "...our only choice is to ignore this paper. They have already achieved what they wanted." But at least they are not intentionally deleting documents or hiding information, right? Oh, no, they're doing that, too. Here is Phil Jones writing Michael Mann, the scientist that came up with that Hockey Stick graph, that one. He said, "Mike, 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 get Caspar to do likewise." Count them. There's Jones, Mike, Keith, Gene, and Caspar, whoever they are, potentially deleting e-mails supposedly about supposed science.
So why all the secrecy? Well, we find out from another e-mail from Michael Mann about skeptic Steven McIntyre. "I'm sure you are aware that McIntyre and his ilk realize they no longer need to get their crap published in legitimate journals [you know, the one's they're cycling! ] but all they have to do is put it up on their blog and the contrarian noise machine kicks into gear. Pretty soon Drudge, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck and their ilk are parroting the claims."
So you see, if McIntyre sees the data, he'll find the tricks that are in it to hide the decline, and then crazy people like me might just let you know about it. Oh, the horror what will happen to cap and trade? That e-mail was sent from one of the scientists to a New York Times reporter. That same reporter, Andrew Revkin, thankfully did report on the story for the New York Times, but he will not post the documents because, quote "The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won't be posted here." Oh, well, I know, the New York Times would never post or print anything that wasn't intended for the public eye, like, maybe, the way we monitor terrorists or specific strategies to protect our troops in the field. No, no, the New York Times, they're above that.
Deleting e-mails, hiding declines, incorrect data, inadequate systems, redefining scientific peer reviews for their own uses! This is what appears to be going on behind the scenes and literally trillions of dollars of policy decisions are being based on what these guys are telling us. If your gut said, "Wait a minute, this global warming thing sounds like a scam." Well, I think you're seeing it now. We told you this was going on, without proof, because we listened to our gut. You'd never believe me, but once again, here we are with yet another brand new reality.
Indeed.
