The UK papers are up in arms over revelations that the CRU in East Anglia destroyed the original data upon which its claims of anthropogenic global warming were based in favor of “value added” data, leaving only the question of whether that value was meant to stimulate scientific knowledge or stimulate government grants:
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
The whole underlying theory of AGW is now essentially unfalsifiable, it has become what scientists – real scientists – label “a religion.”
UK Telegraph‘s Christopher Booker calls it the “scientific scandal of our generation,” adding that it seems something of a trend:
Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.
Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the “hockey stick” were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann’s supporters, calling themselves “the Hockey Team”, and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.
It’s practically impossible to prove a negative, so such ham handedness on the part of those entrusted to Actual Science does not conclusively demonstrate that there is no human element to the current warming cycle – now apparently on hold. But even being generous to the alarmists who claim that they hadn’t the time or effort to rebut each and every skeptic’s claim (although if the science was truly as proven as they claimed it to be, one wonders what was left for them to do) they have seriously damaged their own reputations, and whipped the clothes off innumerable emperors seeking world-wide redistribution of resources everywhere.
Faced with this – and the enormous potential costs economically or ecologically either way the story breaks – it’s only natural for investigative journalists to step in and try to sort this out: Poor science, or poor scientists?
But here at home, the New York Times instead dedicates its resources to raking the coals of John Kerry’s private feud:
(The) Senate Foreign Relations Committee has completed a detailed look back at a crucial failure early in the battle against Al Qaeda: the escape of Osama bin Laden from American forces in the Afghan mountains of Tora Bora in December 2001…
The committee report, prepared at the request of Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the committee’s Democratic chairman, concludes unequivocally that in mid-December 2001, Mr. bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, were at the cave complex, where Mr. bin Laden had operated previously during the fight against Soviet forces…
The report represents unfinished political business on the part of Mr. Kerry. Before and during his unsuccessful 2004 presidential campaign, he hammered on the failure to catch Mr. bin Laden.
So here we are, with the ship of state navigating into the shoal waters around Copenhagen, faced with the choice between a fundamental restructuring of the energy system underlying the world economy and the potential to wreck the world’s climate, and the paper of record steers by the wake.
What a farce.