http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...Y0YzE4NGFiN2M=

Peer Pressure
By the Editors

The thing to understand about the scandal surrounding the e-mails leaked from Britain's
Climatic Research Unit (CRU) is that it is actually three scandals. There is a scientific scandal,
in which the leading lights of the climate-research cabal conspired to fudge data and silence
skeptics. There is a media scandal, in which reporters and editors on the "climate beat" at the
world's most prominent news organizations acted as stenographers for the cabal and ignored the
scandal when it broke. And there is a political scandal, in which officeholders here and abroad
used the bunk science as a pretext for expanding their control of (and take from) the world's
energy markets.

The largest scandal is scientific. The e-mails show climate researchers at a handful of
universities and think tanks engaged in unscrupulous behavior. Phil Jones of CRU, Michael Mann of
Penn State University, and other leaders of the climate cartel discussed statistical tricks they
used to "hide the decline" of atmospheric temperatures. Other data were fudged to cover up warm
periods that didn't fit their theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Tom Wigley of the
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research suggested "correcting" ocean temperatures downward
by 0.15 degrees Celsius "to partly explain the 1940s warming blip."

Nor can the "uncorrected" data be recovered from CRU, which threw much of it away, allegedly
to "save space." The darker possibilty, which Jones hinted at in an e-mail to Mann, is that the
data were intentionally erased. "If [global-warming skeptics] ever hear there is a Freedom of
Information Act now in the U.K.," he wrote, "I think I'll delete the file rather than send to
anyone." Jones should have thought twice: The act penalizes deletion of any material subject to a
FOIA request with fines of up to £5,000. (Considering the grant money he's taking in, though,
that's
perhaps not so sobering a sum.)

But the most troubling aspect of the scientific scandal is the corruption of the peer-review
process for academic papers and studies on AGW. Jones and Mann have historically dismissed out of
hand any criticism of their work that appeared outside of peer-reviewed scientific journals. "Those
.. . . who operate almost entirely outside of [the peer-review] system are not to be trusted," Mann
wrote in an e-mail to New York Times climate correspondent Andrew Revkin. (More on Revkin in a
moment.)

At the same time, the leaked e-mails reveal that these men were working behind the scenes to
narrow the definition of "peer-reviewed journals" to include only those journals that refused to
publish any papers or studies questioning their consensus. "We have to stop considering Climate
Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal," Mann wrote after the journal published a skeptical
study. When Geophysical Research Letters did the same, Wigley (he of the 0.15 degree "correction")
popped up with another helpful fix: "We could go through official [American Geophysical Union]
channels to get him [the editor] ousted." He was, in fact, ousted.

The basic problem is that reconstructing historical climate data is such an inherently
speculative endeavor that it barely qualifies as science, let alone "settled science." The same can
be said for the assumptions that must be piled on one another to create the dire scenarios that
drive the political debate over global warming. The e-mails don't discredit the basic idea of
anthropogenic global warming - carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas - but they remind us how much we
don't know even as the Left rushes to action on the basis of an utterly false sense of certainty.

At the very least, all of this is newsworthy. But the second scandal is what the e-mails
revealed about the watchdog reporters on the climate beat. They remind us of that old scary movie:
When the phone rang at CRU with a reporter on the line, the call was usually coming from inside the
house.

One of the group's main media allies, the BBC, became "tangled in the row" over the e-mails
when the Daily Mail revealed that one of the BBC's reporters was tipped off to their existence more
than a month before they were posted on the web. And on one occasion, when a critic of Mann's work
exposed a problem with the cabal's data, Andrew Revkin at the Times told Mann in an e-mail not to
worry. "I'm going to blog on this as it relates to the value of the peer review process and not on
the merits of the . . . attacks," he wrote, because peer review is "where the herky-jerky process
of knowledge building happens." Mann replied that he couldn't have said it better himself
(really?) - and that's the problem.

Revkin also continues to cover for the CRU crew, playing up the angle that the e-mails might
have been illegally stolen from CRU by hackers rather than leaked by a disillusioned insider. This
sudden prissiness about the source of information would be rich coming from a reporter at any of
the major dailies, but it is especially ridiculous in light of the Times's open-door policy toward
anyone willing to leak classified information about programs to tap the phones and track the
finances of U.S.-based terrorist cells.

The final scandal is that the U.S. government came very close to turning the keys to the
national energy sector over to these people, and still might. The cap-and-trade legislation that
passed the House this summer has reportedly died in the Senate, but the Obama administration's
Environmental Protection Agency - emboldened by a wrongheaded Supreme Court decision - maintains
that it can unilaterally regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Obama himself has announced he
will attend a climate summit this month in Copenhagen, after rumors that he planned to skip it.

Liberals like to say that conservatives are at war with science. But the leaked CRU e-mails
show a subset of the scientific community at war with the conservative temperament, according to
which projects to transform society through radical changes to our way of life ought to be
approached with the utmost skepticism. Any process that treats legitimate skeptics as blasphemers
to be purged is the opposite of scientific inquiry. This has been the conservative position in the
climate-change debate for some time, but these scandals give the argument a new resonance.

Eric Gisin wrote:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...Y0YzE4NGFiN2M=


Peer Pressure
By the Editors

The thing to understand about the scandal surrounding the e-mails
leaked from Britain's
Climatic Research Unit (CRU) is that it is actually three scandals.
There is a scientific scandal,
in which the leading lights of the climate-research cabal conspired to
fudge data and silence
skeptics. There is a media scandal, in which reporters and editors on
the "climate beat" at the
world's most prominent news organizations acted as stenographers for the
cabal and ignored the
scandal when it broke. And there is a political scandal, in which
officeholders here and abroad
used the bunk science as a pretext for expanding their control of (and
take from) the world's
energy markets.

The largest scandal is scientific. The e-mails show climate
researchers at a handful of
universities and think tanks engaged in unscrupulous behavior. Phil
Jones of CRU, Michael Mann of
Penn State University, and other leaders of the climate cartel discussed
statistical tricks they
used to "hide the decline" of atmospheric temperatures. Other data were
fudged to cover up warm
periods that didn't fit their theory of anthropogenic global warming
(AGW). Tom Wigley of the
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research suggested "correcting"
ocean temperatures downward
by 0.15 degrees Celsius "to partly explain the 1940s warming blip."

It still does not show that there is no man-made global warming, bonzo
is getting really desperate here.


Nor can the "uncorrected" data be recovered from CRU, which threw
much of it away, allegedly
to "save space." The darker possibilty, which Jones hinted at in an
e-mail to Mann, is that the
data were intentionally erased. "If [global-warming skeptics] ever hear
there is a Freedom of
Information Act now in the U.K.," he wrote, "I think I'll delete the
file rather than send to
anyone." Jones should have thought twice: The act penalizes deletion of
any material subject to a
FOIA request with fines of up to £5,000. (Considering the grant money
he's taking in, though, that's
perhaps not so sobering a sum.)

No data was erased, this is a lie.


But the most troubling aspect of the scientific scandal is the
corruption of the peer-review
process for academic papers and studies on AGW. Jones and Mann have
historically dismissed out of
hand any criticism of their work that appeared outside of peer-reviewed
scientific journals. "Those

This is not true, they accepted the comments of for instance Hans von
Storch, but they indeed dismissed much of the criticism into journals as
being not up to the scientific standards.

.. . . who operate almost entirely outside of [the peer-review] system
are not to be trusted," Mann
wrote in an e-mail to New York Times climate correspondent Andrew
Revkin. (More on Revkin in a
moment.)

At the same time, the leaked e-mails reveal that these men were
working behind the scenes to
narrow the definition of "peer-reviewed journals" to include only those
journals that refused to
publish any papers or studies questioning their consensus. "We have to
stop considering Climate

This is misleading. The consensus is to uphold quality of science, not
to dismiss information. The Hans von Storch example shows that you are
wrong. But the real nasty point for you is, even Hans von Storch was not
able to prove global warming wrong.

Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal," Mann wrote after the
journal published a skeptical
study. When Geophysical Research Letters did the same, Wigley (he of the
0.15 degree "correction")
popped up with another helpful fix: "We could go through official
[American Geophysical Union]
channels to get him [the editor] ousted." He was, in fact, ousted.

The basic problem is that reconstructing historical climate data is
such an inherently
speculative endeavor that it barely qualifies as science, let alone
"settled science." The same can
be said for the assumptions that must be piled on one another to create
the dire scenarios that
drive the political debate over global warming. The e-mails don't
discredit the basic idea of
anthropogenic global warming - carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas - but
they remind us how much we
don't know even as the Left rushes to action on the basis of an utterly
false sense of certainty.

At the very least, all of this is newsworthy. But the second
scandal is what the e-mails
revealed about the watchdog reporters on the climate beat. They remind
us of that old scary movie:
When the phone rang at CRU with a reporter on the line, the call was
usually coming from inside the
house.

One of the group's main media allies, the BBC, became "tangled in
the row" over the e-mails
when the Daily Mail revealed that one of the BBC's reporters was tipped
off to their existence more
than a month before they were posted on the web. And on one occasion,
when a critic of Mann's work
exposed a problem with the cabal's data, Andrew Revkin at the Times told
Mann in an e-mail not to
worry. "I'm going to blog on this as it relates to the value of the peer
review process and not on
the merits of the . . . attacks," he wrote, because peer review is
"where the herky-jerky process
of knowledge building happens." Mann replied that he couldn't have said
it better himself
(really?) - and that's the problem.

Revkin also continues to cover for the CRU crew, playing up the
angle that the e-mails might
have been illegally stolen from CRU by hackers rather than leaked by a
disillusioned insider. This
sudden prissiness about the source of information would be rich coming
from a reporter at any of
the major dailies, but it is especially ridiculous in light of the
Times's open-door policy toward
anyone willing to leak classified information about programs to tap the
phones and track the
finances of U.S.-based terrorist cells.

The final scandal is that the U.S. government came very close to
turning the keys to the
national energy sector over to these people, and still might. The
cap-and-trade legislation that
passed the House this summer has reportedly died in the Senate, but the
Obama administration's
Environmental Protection Agency - emboldened by a wrongheaded Supreme
Court decision - maintains
that it can unilaterally regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Obama
himself has announced he
will attend a climate summit this month in Copenhagen, after rumors that
he planned to skip it.

Liberals like to say that conservatives are at war with science.
But the leaked CRU e-mails
show a subset of the scientific community at war with the conservative
temperament, according to
which projects to transform society through radical changes to our way
of life ought to be
approached with the utmost skepticism. Any process that treats
legitimate skeptics as blasphemers
to be purged is the opposite of scientific inquiry. This has been the
conservative position in the
climate-change debate for some time, but these scandals give the
argument a new resonance.


Bonzo is really getting stuck in fantasies that have no scientific
ground. And this is why non of his ideas progress further than the
bloggosphere.

Q


--
Well, opinions are like assholes... everybody has one. -- Harry Callahan
http://tinyurl.com/m7m3qd