…and now we know which men. Their names are Jones, Mann, Osborn, Wigley, and Briffa.
When I was a 20-something, a couple men announced they had achieved “cold fusion”. This turned out to be a hoax. In the early part of this decade, a company called Clonaid announced that they had cloned a human being. This also turned out to be a hoax.
If you haven’t been paying attention the last few days, you’ve missed the biggest science story since these two. E-mails and data from the UK’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) were published without their knowledge or consent. This has been referred to constantly by what little media coverage it’s received as a “hack”. That seems to be wrong to me. This has all the smells of a “whistleblower” incident if you ask me. Someone on the inside decided they’d heard/seen enough. I could be wrong. We’ll see.
The folks at CRU are the prime movers and shakers of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) crowd. There’s barely a speech given or paper written on the subject that doesn’t reference their work. Why does this matter?
Well, to put it bluntly, these folks can’t be trusted.
These e-mails discuss elimination of data that doesn’t support the thesis, destruction of records requested under Freedom of Information requests, discrediting critics and prevention of publication of their works.
Longtime readers of this blog will recall that a couple months ago, I wrote a post about possible faking of data in one of the main “hockey stick” graphs. The text of the e-mails pretty much confirms this speculation, and this exact issue is even discussed in this e-mail.
Does this mean that AGW isn’t real? No. In fact, the sad thing is these people have made real debate on this subject even harder. I wouldn’t believe any of them now if they told me “2+2=4”. With or without proof. I’ve seen their idea of “proof”.
Of course, this issue has been met with deafening silence from the MSM. The NYT has decided to comment, with one of the most laughable comments I have ever read from a “news organization”.
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.
The NYT’s problem isn’t that these documents “were never intended for the public eye”. It’s that they’re An Inconvenient Truth.