Politics and Science

I've always said that it was sad that people can't trust climate change data because it has been politicized. Now, leaked e-mails prove what I have always believed. That scientists manipulate data to the outcome they wish it to be.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was started in 1988 and "is the world's leading authority on climate change. It advises governments on the science behind the problem and was awarded the Nobel peace prize along with Al Gore in 2007."

Hacked e-mails have shown that Scientists reject whatever data doesn't reflect their world view:

"one email from 2004 in which Professor Phil Jones, the head of the climatic research unit at UEA, said of two papers he regarded as flawed: "I can't see either … being in the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

In other words, since the papers revealed things about climate change that didn't fit their political agenda, he was going to make sure they were not included in the next Climate Change report.

Now, this doesn't dismiss climate change out of hand, but it certainly proves there is a political agenda behind the data and studies of scientists.

And that is a crying shame.

No problem. We will just get the data and find reputable scientists and get them to give us an unbiased look at the studies.

Oops. The data is no longer available:

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

So let me get this straight. All the data that people have relied on to prove global warming has been "thrown away." Isn't that special?

Consider that Cap and Trade legislation, which will impose crushing costs on businesses and consumers, was created in response to climate change data from the CRU and is likely to be the biggest tax in American history.

Just unbelievable.

Update: NRO points to this:

In response to all this, Eduardo Zorita, a scientist who contributed to the fourth IPCC report:

I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere -and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations,even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the 'politically correct picture'. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the 'pleasure' to experience all this in my area of research.

Here is a scientist involved in the studies, requesting that the scientists involved in the "tweaking" be barred from the IPCC process. That should go without saying. Nothing they do now will have any credibility.

Update II: In related news:

The Head of the European Carbon Exchange admits what we've known for some time, that Europe's cap-and-trade scheme has not reduced greenhouse-gas emissions since it began in January 2005:

The Commodities and Futures Trading Commission even believes that within five years, carbon could surpass crude oil as the world's most traded commodity. Mr Birley is the first to admit that the European system "hasn't actually reduced emissions" so far.

This complete failure to meet its supposed objective comes at a high cost. The Taxpayers Alliance in the U.K. estimates that cap-and-trade cost European consumers around $140 billion last year, and possibly much more. That's a high price to pay for not actually reducing emissions. Just wait till it starts actually working, then we'll see real money being spent!

Update III: I forgot to add this Wall Street Journal story which quotes e-mails that shows clearly that they were trying to hide the decline of temperature and deleting files so they won't be obtained by the freedom of information act:

Of particular note has been the exchange between Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia, and Professor Michael E. Mann at Pennsylvania State University.

Among the emails tapped by a hacker is one in which Jones talks to Mann about the "trick of adding in the real temps to each series ... to hide the decline [in temperature]."

"If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone," Jones allegedly told Mann.

From the NYT:

In several e-mail exchanges, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and other scientists discuss gaps in understanding of recent variations in temperature. Skeptic Web sites pointed out one line in particular: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” Dr. Trenberth wrote.

Michelle Malkin has the e-mails here.