FReepmail me to get on or off
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Posted on 12/03/2009 9:28:39 AM PST by Presbyterian Reporter
The more we learn about the purloined e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, the more it resembles Watergate. As was the case in 1974, there will be no one particular spectacular revelation, but rather an unremitting and unrelenting daily drip-drip that ultimately brings down the house.
The latest gem comes from none other than Rajendra Pauchari, the head of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change who’s not trained in climatology.
Without the IPCC, there would be no cap-and-tax legislation awaiting debate in the Senate; there would be no meeting in Copenhagen, where next month world leaders will attempt to globalize cap-and-tax; and there would be no pledge from President Barack Obama about emissions reductions that have never been passed by the Senate.
The e-mails have given Pauchari the onerous task of defending the IPCC from its own “scientific” leadership, now accused (or, perhaps, incriminating itself) of seriously manipulating the scientific literature that goes into the August IPCC scientific reports.
In one of the e-mails, Penn State’s Michael Mann, long a power player in the production of these reports, said this about some scientific articles he did not like: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
This is pretty serious stuff, because it, and many similar e-mails, paint a picture of IPCC boffins committing science’s capital crime: trying to game the peer-reviewed literature, which is akin to editing what goes in the Bible.
In this case, Mann is actually speculating about keeping contrary information out of the IPCC reports by blacklisting certain professional journals.
One series of these e-mails called out the journal Climate Research, which had the audacity to publish a paper surveying a voluminous scientific literature that didn’t support Mann’s claim that the past 50 years are the warmest in the past millennium. Along with CRU head Phil Jones and other climate luminaries, they then cooked up the idea of boycotting any scientific journal that dared publish anything by a few notorious “skeptics,” myself included.
Their pressure worked. Editors resigned or were fired. Many colleagues began to complain to me that their good papers were either being rejected outright or subject to outrageous reviews — papers that would have been published with little revision just a few years ago.
So what is Pauchari’s response to all of this? Denial.
“IPCC relies entirely on peer-reviewed literature in carrying out its assessment and follows a process that renders it unlikely that any peer-reviewed piece of literature, however contrary to the views of any individual author, would be left out.”
That’s just not true. The last IPCC compendium on climate science, published in 2007, left out plenty of peer-reviewed science that it found inconveniently disagreeable.
These include articles from the journals Arctic, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Earth Interactions, Geophysical Research Letters, International Journal of Climatology, Journal of Climate, Journal of Geophysical Research, Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and Quaternary Research.
We hardly have heard the end of Climategate, but don’t expect some climactic grand finale. In 1974, errors, boo-boos and downright duplicities slowly piled up.
The same is happening now. Like Tricky Dick, Rajenda Pauchari may soon be headed home.
Patrick J. Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of “Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know.”
We need to be diligent and not give up quickly in the quest to get to the truth.
This is a start. Major newspapers and newspaper chains are likely subject to serious pressure from the Administration which desperately wants them to spike this story. The talk from Congress about potential bailouts of the industry has to carry an impressive amount of weight applied against any journalist who figures out what a scam the AGW movement has been. I am as surprised about this as you are.
Every now and then they publish an article from the right.
On their web version, yes. Can any San Francisco FReeper verify that it went into the print edition?
Never give up. But having this in world news over the weekend will be a fitting intro to the Copenhagen debacle.
Think of the billions of all nation’s $$$$(most from the US) that have been stolen behind all of this. These perps need to be drawn and quartered.
“The more we learn about the purloined e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit”
How does he know they were “purloined”.
Could have been a whistle blower ...
Finally, a “-gate” worthy of the suffix “-gate.”
THEY ARE COOKING THE BOOKS ON GLOBAL WARMING!!!!
Weather ..snowed in Dallas yesterday and snow is likely in Houston tonight...for the first time in 90 years!
One year is plenty of time to ram through Cap&Trade and Copenhagen after which nothing much matters any more. We cannot count on the CRU revelations to do the work. We have to maintain the pressure on the Congress.
>>Can any San Francisco FReeper verify that it went into the print edition?<<
Does anyone still read the print version outside an office lobby?
The analogy may still be too tenuous for a letter to the editor, but it eerie to me. I think I will send it to Lars Larson for his Conspiracy Theory Thursday.
Here is a link to the Reuters article: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5B14H320091202
There was an article from Reuters in which Henry Waxman says the government will be involved in shaping the future for struggling media organization. Free Press said solutions should be premised on the idea news gathering is a public service, not a commodity. Such an article reminds of this passage from The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer.
“Every morning the editors of Berlin daily newspapers and correspondents of those published elsewhere in the Reich gathered at the Ministry of Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda to be told by Dr. Goebbels or one of his aids what news to print and suppress, how to write the news and headline it, what campaigns to call off or institute, and what editorials were desired for the day. In case of any misunderstanding a daily written directive was furnished along with the oral instructions. For the smaller out-of town papers and periodicals the directives were dispatched by telegram or the mail”.
“The Reich Press Law of October 4, 1933 made journalism a ‘public vocation’. Section14 of the Press Law ordered editors ‘to keep out of the newspapers anything which in any manner is misleading to the public, mixes selfish aims with community aims, tends to weaken the strength of the German Reich, outwardly or inwardly, the common will of the German people, the defense of Germany, its culture and economy…or offends the honor and dignity of Germany‘”.
Can anyone confirm or correct that understanding?
Michaels is one of the scientists who has been extremely harmed by this cabal of Climatati.
I hope to see him speaking louder and longer against these jokers, and am happy that he has CATO for his sound board.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
