 |
The term Climategate was originally coined in 2009 to describe the scandal revealed by leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (“CRU”). Back then, most people didn't care about climate change. They obviously did not know that this narrative would be based on a psychopathic elite with the intention of enslaving humanity.
The senders and recipients of the emails were a list of the scientific elite of the IPCC [ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ]. It was a small group of scientists who for years exerted the greatest influence on global alarm about global warming, mainly through the role played by the UN.
"Our desperately compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our time," wrote the late Christopher Booker at the time .
The following was written by Christopher Booker and published by The Telegraph on November 28, 2009 .
Climate change: The biggest scientific "HOAX" of our generation.
A week after my colleague James Delingpole , in his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, Google is showing that the word now appears online more than nine million times . But in all these millions of references, an extremely important part of thousands of documents has been largely lost.
The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot ( known for his environmental and political activism ) expressed complete shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents, is because these are not authored by some mere group of academics. It is the small group of scientists that has for years exerted more influence on global alarm about global warming than any other, mainly through their role at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Professor Philip Jones, director of the CRU, is responsible for the two main datasets used by the IPCC and for producing its reports. Through its link with the Hadley Centre, the UK Met Office, which selects the IPCC's key scientific partners, wrote that the global temperature record is the highest of the four temperature data sets relied on by the IPCC and governments. According to their predictions, the world will heat up to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to prevent it.
Dr Jones is also a key part of the tight-knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting this bogus picture of global temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's graph, which 10 years ago upended climate history by showing that , after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have soared to the highest level in recorded history.
Given the bogus assessment by the IPCC, mainly for the way it seemed to overlook the long warm period of the Middle Ages when temperatures were much higher than they are today. Nevertheless, the graph became the central icon of the entire anthropogenic global warming movement.
Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the chart were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by a Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre , an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Michael Mann's supporters and McIntyre's supporters. , who have challenged the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU build their agenda.
The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails are a list of the IPCC's scientific elite, including not only the 'Michael Mann Team' but also Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and their colleague at CRU, Keith Briffa, but also Ben Sander, responsible for the highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the 1995 IPCC report. Kevin Trenberth, who similarly pushed the IPCC to panic about hurricane activity. and Gavin Schmidt, Al Gore's right-hand man, whose GISS archive of surface temperature data is second only to CRU's own.
How the fraud was revealed through emails
There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents, which have sent shockwaves through the media around the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as eloquently documented by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's Climate Audit blog and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails showing how Dr. Jones and colleagues for years they have been planning the underhanded tactics by which they could avoid releasing their data to third parties under freedom of information laws.
They have found every possible excuse to hide the historical data on which their findings and temperature records were based.
This in itself has become a major scandal, notably Dr Jones's refusal to release the key data from which the CRU derives its massive temperature record, culminating last summer in the astonishing claim that much of the data from across the world simply disappeared". Most incriminating of all are emails, which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which is considered a criminal offence.
The second and more shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show scientists trying to manipulate data through their rickety computer programs, always pointing in one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and "adjust" recent temperatures to the above. to convey the impression of accelerated warming. This comes up so often (and not just in the computer data related documents in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most troubling element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with the temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record).
In each of these countries it was possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been done – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph showing temperatures rising steadily. And in any case this manipulation was done under the influence of the CRU.
The third shocking revelation of these papers is the ruthless way in which these academics decided to silence any challenge to the findings they arrived at by such dubious methods – not simply by refusing to reveal their underlying data but by discrediting any scientific journal that dared to publish them. tasks of their opponents. They seem intent on stifling scientific debate in this way, primarily by ensuring that no dissenting research finds its way into the pages of IPCC reports.
In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more obvious that these men have failed to uphold these principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific inquiry and debate. Already a respected US climate scientist, Dr. Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr. Mann and Dr. Jones to be barred from any further involvement in the IPCC.
Former chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation , rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the leaked CRU documents. But our desperately compromised scientific establishment cannot escape what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our time.
"The Real Disaster of Global Warming: Is Christopher Booker's 'Climate Change' Obsession Proving to be the Costliest Scientific Glitch in History?"
source:
