Questions and Observations

My friend Ed Morrisey over at Hot Air, goes on a righteous rant about the failure of the American media, unlike the British and Australian media, to investigate the allegations of fraud and malfeasance leveled against those who have advanced the AGW theories. Why they’ve not done so remains a mystery (well, sort of). But while doing so, Ed offers a very good list of what has happened to date:

University of East Anglia e-mails that exposed data destruction, attempts to hide contradictory data, and conspiracies to sabotage the work of skeptical scientists

The East Anglia CRU threw out their raw data, undermining any effort to check their work

NOAA/GHCN “homogenization” falsified climate declines into increases

East Anglia CRU’s below-standard computer modeling

No rise in atmospheric carbon fraction over the last 150 years: University of Bristol

IPCC withdraws claim that AGW will wipe out Himalayan glaciers by 2035

IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri knew Himalayan claim was bogus for months before exposure

Amazonian rainforest conclusions not based on scientific research but on advocacy group claims

Mountain glacier claims based on unsubstantiated student theses and anecdotes from climber magazine

Search of IPCC report footnotes exposes ten more student dissertations presented as peer-reviewed research

Medieval Warming Period temperatures may have been global, undermining entire AGW case

Measurements used for AGW case were influenced by urbanization, poor location, bad data sets

African-crop claims exposed as false

IPCC researchers excluded Southern Hemisphere data to exaggerate effects of warming on hurricanes

Hurricane claims further exposed as false by actual peer-reviewed research — including by some AGW researchers

Major scientific group concludes IPCC-linked researchers “complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices“

I suspect this will end up being a partial list as more and more comes out. And, to add to his last point, this week another very respected scientific institution voiced it’s concerns:

Scientists at the heart of the Climategate row were yesterday accused by a leading academic body of undermining science’s credibility.

The Institute of Physics said ‘worrying implications’ had been raised after it was revealed the University of East Anglia had manipulated data on global warming.

Of course Dr. Phil Jones of East Anglia’s CRU, testifying before the Science and Technology Committee in the UK, admits to writing some “pretty awful emails” but denies the manipulation of data charge. The Institute of Physics is having none of that however:

Giving evidence to a Science and Technology Committee inquiry, the Institute of Physics said: ‘Unless the disclosed emails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research and for the credibility of the scientific method.

‘The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital.’

In fact, it is known as the Scientific Method. Jones, apparently, doesn’t agree:

[Jones] claimed it was not ‘standard practice’ to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research.

In the world of science – real science – that should automatically mean that it should be “standard practice” for other scientists to disregard anything theorized by someone who refuses to release data and models for peer review. And that appears to be exactly what is beginning to happen among the more reputable scientists.

Meanwhile, with total disregard for the story or the facts our media and politicians continue to push for implementation of the policy recommendations that have been derived from this rapidly disintegrating attempt to scam us through “science.” Given the scam they’re running about health care reform, that should come as absolutely no surprise.

~McQ