The more we learn about the purloined e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit the more it resembles Watergate. As was the case in 1974, there will be no one particular spectacular revelation, but rather an unremitting and unrelenting daily drip-drip that ultimately brings down the house.
The latest gem comes from none other than
Rajendra Pauchari, the climatologically untrained head of the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Without the IPCC there would be no
cap-and-tax legislation awaiting debate in the Senate. There would be no
meeting in Copenhagen, where, next month, world leaders will attempt to
globalize cap-and-tax. There would also be no pledge from President Obama to
emissions reductions that have never been passed by the Senate.
“The last IPCC compendium on climate
science, published in 2007, left out plenty of peer-reviewed science that it
found inconveniently disagreeable.”
The e-mails have given Pauchari the onerous
task of defending the IPCC from its own “scientific” leadership, now accused
(or, perhaps, incriminating itself) of seriously manipulating the scientific
literature that goes into the august IPCC scientific reports.
In one of the e-mails, East Anglia’s Phil
Jones, long a power player in the production of these reports, said this about
some scientific articles he did not like: “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!”
This is pretty serious stuff, because it,
and many similar e-mails, paint a picture of IPCC boffins committing science’s
capital crime: Trying to game the peer-reviewed literature, which is akin to
editing what goes in the Bible.
In this case, Jones is actually speculating
about keeping contrary information out of the IPCC reports by blacklisting
certain professional journals.
One series of these e-mails called out the
journal Climate Research, which had the audacity to publish a paper
surveying a voluminous scientific literature that didn’t support Mann’s claim
that the last 50 years are the warmest in the past millennium. Along with the
CRU head Phil Jones and other climate luminaries, they then cooked up the idea
of boycotting any scientific journal that dared publish anything by a few
notorious “skeptics,” myself included.
Their pressure worked. Editors resigned or
were fired. Many colleagues began to complain to me that their good papers were
either being rejected outright or subject to outrageous reviews — papers that
would have been published with little revision just a few years ago.
So what is Pauchari’s response to all of
this? Denial.
“IPCC relies entirely on peer-reviewed
literature in carrying out its assessment and follows a process that renders it
unlikely that any peer reviewed piece of literature, however contrary to the
views of any individual author, would be left out.”
That’s just not true. The last IPCC
compendium on climate science, published in 2007, left out plenty of
peer-reviewed science that it found inconveniently disagreeable.
These include articles from the journals Arctic,
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Earth Interactions,
Geophysical Research Letters, International Journal of Climatology,
Journal of Climate, Journal of Geophysical Research, Nature,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and Quaternary
Research.
We have hardly heard the end of
Climategate, but don’t expect some climactic grand finale. In 1974, errors,
boo-boos, and downright duplicities slowly piled up.
The
same is happening now. Like Tricky Dick, Pauchari may soon be headed home.
Source: Cato Institute, Climate Scientists Subverted Peer Review, By Patrick J. Michaels, A
version of this article appeared in the DC Examiner
on December 2, 2009.
Comments:
The list of discredited global warming mongers
should be long and long remembered. The UN was the “inventor”. Al Gore was the “messenger”.
Hillary Clinton has been the “cheer leader”. George HW Bush was the “dupe”. Bill
Clinton was the “implementer” George W. Bush was the “ignorer”. George Soros
was the “investor”. The Chamber of Communists has been its “promoter”. Regional commissars are its enforcers. The US Congress continues to be its “enabler”.
Obama continues to be its “champion”.
Simply defunding UN Agenda 21 implementation would
more than balance the federal budget.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea
Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment