As Barack Obama famously quoted U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, "Sunlight is the greatest disinfectant."
While I can't condone hacking e-mail accounts and stealing private correspondence, the recent exposure of global climate change fraudsters' communications seems to have shed sunlight on this festering pool of junk science.
From James Delingpole's "Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?":
...perhaps the most damaging revelations...are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.The truth sometimes does need a vigorous defense, but it's inappropriate for that defense to be a shroud of lies and manipulated data protected by rabid suppression of the scientific method. What's shocking is apparent surprise at this new evidence. We've known for a long time proponents of the anthropogenic global warming farce have been lying and manipulating the data to support a rotten theory. It's obvious that the face of Global Warming, Al Gore, doesn't believe in it, or he'd behave differently.
Here are a few tasters.
Manipulation of evidence:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Suppression of evidence:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.
Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….
And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
Senator Inhofe has promised to call for an investigation into this new evidence against the liars in the anthropogenic global warming camp, but the real death of the movement will be the continued publication of their lies and honest scientific research into their claims.
For the interested, here's another source with some more complete e-mails, and an additional editorial on the subject.
Update: So much for peer reviewed honest science. Apparently in order to avoid scrutiny, scientists at the UEA dumped their raw data. They claim it was to save space during a move from one facility to another. What scientists throws away the raw data proving his or her theory? It seems to better fit this exchange:
Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone" and, "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind." Mr. Jones further urged Mr. Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) controversial assessment report (ARA): "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re [the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report]?"