TheBryster opened this issue on Nov 26, 2009 · 49 posts
Quest posted Sat, 28 November 2009 at 7:41 AM
LOL…automatically switching into cleanup mode is to be expected. The fact that it came out at all should be enough to make people stop and wonder. Many of us are very much aware that a bottlenecking of the truth has been going on and perpetrated for many years in an attempt to channel revenues into so-called “green” hands. Many very reputable scientists on the other side of the debate have been denied equal platform and openly ridiculed in order to silence the opposition. Very not in keeping with the “scientific method” of scientific inquiry and the thorough examination of all hypothesis before even being elevated to the status of workable theory. To be apropos with the analogy, it is pretty much what the tobacco companies were doing as well…silencing the opposition and misdirecting as they continued to kill people with their cash cow.
Of course the entire pro anthropogenic global warming (AGW) crowd is downplaying and trying desperately to minimize the effects of what is now being referred to as “ClimateGate” and are flimsily trying to redirect the focus off the contents of the emails themselves and onto the act of the hacking theft as if we didn’t already know it’s illegal. It took CNN six days to recognize the importance of this international scandal, notwithstanding the fact that the scientists involved are tied to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as well as to the White House and Congressional Democrats.
“These emails have not been verified as genuine.”
“A university* spokesman confirmed the email system had been hacked and that information was taken and published without permission.”
“Clamoring alarmists can and will spin this until they're dizzy. The ever-clueless mainstream media can and will ignore this until it's forced upon them as front-page news, and then most will join the alarmists on the denial merry-go-round.
But here's what’s undeniable: If a divergence exists between measured temperatures and those derived from dendrochronological data after (circa) 1960, then discarding only the post-1960 figures is disingenuous, to say the least. The very existence of a divergence betrays a potential serious flaw in the process by which temperatures are reconstructed from tree-ring density. If it's bogus beyond a set threshold, then any honest man of science would instinctively question its integrity prior to that boundary. And only the lowliest would apply a hack in order to produce a desired result.
And to do so without declaring as such in a footnote on every chart in every report in every study in every book in every classroom on every website that such a corrupt process is relied upon is not just a crime against science, it’s a crime against mankind.”
“…CRU's evidence is now irrevocably tainted. As such, all assumptions based on that evidence must now be reevaluated and readjudicated. And all policy based on those counterfeit assumptions must also be reexamined.
…We know they've been lying all along, and now we can prove it. It's time to bring sanity back to this debate.
It's time for the First IPCC Reassessment Report.”
Personally I’m sitting back and watching this story unfold with amusement and fascination despite Cap and Trade (eluded to as Cap & Tax) law passage.