Unsettling Science, Part 1
For several decades now, we have been informed that global warming is a clear and present danger to ourselves and our way of life, that the science behind it is sound, and that ignoring the warning signs will lead to a host of Hollywood-esque catastrophes.
Enter stage right: the CRU – Climate Research Unit – of East Anglia. East Anglia is a university in Britain, and CRU is one of the most influential climate research organizations in the world.
The CRU is the chief research organization feeding information to the International Panel on Climate Change, a committee within the UN, and the IPCC is the primary promulgator of the man-made global warming scenario.
In short, there is a direct line between CRU, the IPCC, and the economic initiatives aimed at reducing carbon emissions around the world – like the cap-and-trade bill Obama is presently trying to ramrod through Congress.
Late last month, a massive collection of classified internal emails from within CRU were posted online for the world to see. The contents of the emails were, in a word, incriminating.
This, from Prof Phil Jones, the head researcher at CRU: “I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline” [Emphasis added].
When speaking of global warming – which is an increase of global temperatures – hearing the lead researcher from the world’s most influential climate research lab refer to a ‘trick’ used to ‘hide the decline’ has ominous connotations.
Among other conversations in these emails, one finds collusion in manipulating data, attempts to delegitimize journals that print opposing viewpoints, and admissions that available climate data does not support the overarching global warming model. More disturbing is the apparent appeal from Jones to another noted climate researcher, Dr. Michael Mann, to delete correspondence that had been requested under the Freedom of Information Act. If true, this deletion constitutes a felony.
Diversions on this issue include Barbara Boxer’s (D-CA) statement earlier this month: “You call it ‘Climate-gate’; I call it ‘E-mail-theft-gate.’” She implies that the scandal is not the questionable CRU communiqués, but the theft of the emails themselves.
This is silly. Imagine that a burglar breaks into a home to steal a television, and finds four kidnapped children in the basement. He promptly releases them, and then steals the television on the way out. Which is the bigger story – the release of the victims, or the theft of the television?
It is possible that there are innocent explanations for these emails, but such explanations have yet to be provided. Dr. Jones has stepped down from his lead position at CRU, and the research community at large is in denial mode.
The challenge that you and I face is daunting. We are not scientists, researchers, or climate specialists. We are not familiar with the methods used to discern temperatures from thousands of years ago – or even last week – and we are surrounded by conflicting shouts of rage and indignation, too often couched in technical jargon.
We clearly cannot take statements from the climate research community at face value, but neither can we trust the veracity of the denunciations from the Right, since we cannot be sure whether they are rooted in earnest truth-seeking or political opportunism.
Fear not! As is usually the case, the issue will be resolved financially.
For decades, our tax dollars have funded the climate research leviathan. Whether voted, appropriated, or otherwise budgeted, you and I have been venture capitalists for a multi-billion dollar weather research machine.
This is not the time for faux-indignation or circled wagons. An innocuous explanation for these emails must be provided post haste. If the science is as settled as many claim, this should be an easy task. However, if satisfactory answers are not provided, and soon, public opinion will inevitably move us toward a reduction in federal funding for future climate research.
On this issue, regardless of the scientific debate, the climate industry would be wise to remember who fills their trough.