Climategate. It sounds like yet another buzz word to join the ranks of those used by global warming activists to inspire fear in the hearts and tap the wallets of the population. The big difference- Climategate is a buzz word you should be paying attention to. This scandal doesn’t involve oil spills or SUV’s or waste dumping, it involves the science of the ‘global warming crisis’ and the scientific community that supports the ‘truth’ that man-made climate change is a real and active threat to our quality of life on this blue rock.

At the end of November some very industrious hacker gained access to the servers at  Britain’s Climate Research Unit (CRU), University of East Anglia (UEA), claimed 4,662 emails and other documents, zipped them into a neat little file and released them to the world. So what? Why is this such a big deal? These are scientists, their methods and results should be scientific, what could they possibly have to be worried about? Well, if you ignore the sniping about their contemporaries (which many in the world of academia are like to do) what you have is startling statements from the top scientists in this very lucrative field about their methods for data collection and the use of that data in creating the big scary global warming crisis we are all supposed to be changing our lives and spending our money to prevent.

The following quotes are pulled from Tony Hake’s article “ClimateGate- Climate center’s server hacked revealing documents and emails” via Examiner.com, but they are not a single source. Just enter “Climategate” into your favorite search engine and start reading.

What is so damning? Because they contain emails like these:

From Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado:

“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.”

From Phil Jones, chief of the Hadley Climate Research Unit:

“The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! …  The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !”

Some emails condemn ‘nay-sayers’, those who have brought forward questions about the validity of the data and the way it has been presented. Presenting alternatives to global warming is apparently an unwelcome addition to this scientific discourse and it should leave all of us wondering why. If a scientific theory, especially one presented as fact and heavily funded by public resources, is presented those presenting should welcome all ‘nay-sayers’ and be ready to answer the questions with raw data supporting their theories.

Other allegations of sub-standard peer review practices, manipulation and suppression of data to support the warming increase, violations under the Freedom of Information Act and issues with the administration of the overall organization have arisen from what was contained within the emails.

In response to the hack, RealClimate.org, “Climate science from climate scientists”,  released a statement that did not refute the emails or their authenticity, but simply reminded the readers that hacking into an email system is both unethical and illegal and thus they would not be directly answering what they called “cherry-picked… out-of-context” one liners. They make the attempt to write off this leaked information as “a peek into how scientists actually interact”  and that the “noise-generating components of the blogosphere” are only seeking to discredit these polite and competitive scientists who “find the best approximations of the truth” for our own noise making agendas.

In the words of Penn & Teller : BULLSHIT. This is science, not liberal arts, words like “trick”, “hide” and “remove data” shouldn’t be part of the discussion. The world should be asking more than just “Did you write this?” we should be saying “Prove to me your theory is valid without removing, changing or altering the raw data.”

The statement from RealClimate.Org goes on to say:

More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.

From what has been reported and what I have personally read, they are correct. There is no outlined conspiracy or admissions of a hoax and sadly no messages from their socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords with marching orders to lead the public into a mass hysteria of global proportions. Funny thing is most of the global media coverage isn’t claiming that this is the last nail in the coffin of global warming, but more a question of whether there may be a huge tumor growing inside it.

Could it be that we have been baffled by bullshit for years resulting in continued government regulation and massive increases in government programs that have a direct effect on what we drive, what we eat,where we live and what other, possibly more relevant programs, get funded with our tax dollars.

While climate scientists clamor to spin this as nothing more than conspiracy theory and interoffice discourse, the global community should stop charging forward and re-examine the facts that have been presented about man-made climate change. If the theory is correct then the climate scientists have nothing to fear from close public scrutiny of their methods and data. Sadly, in this country media converage since the hack was discovered has been more concerned with Tiger’s hair pulling than where the global warming movement may be headed.

To their credit, UEA has launched an indpendent investigation into the CRU to be headed by Sir Muir Russell, former Vice Chancellor at the University of Glasgow. Russel has no ties in the climate community and has done no research on climate change. They will be looking into data tampering, peer-review practices, Freedom of Information Act compliance and the administration by Dr. Phil Jones, head of CRU, who has recently stepped down until the completion of Russell’s inquiry.

The UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported on December 4th that they would be doing their own investigation.

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the ICCP said,

“We certainly don’t want to brush anything under the carpet. This is a serious issue and we will certainly look into it in detail.”

Pachauri was initially dismissive of any allegations of wrong-doing or tampering.  Hardly surprising given that the CRU’s research was primary to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report  in 2007 which is currently considered the most authoritative report on climate change.

Pachauri is obviously a quick study. Apparently Pachauri’s detailed investigation took only three days to review all 4,662 emails and documents, as well as look into the CRU and their administration.CNN.com reports this morning that Pachauri is again dismissing the allegations essentially parroting RealClimate.org’s stance that this is just scientists letting off steam:

“Well, I can tell you, privately when I talk to my friends, I use language much worse than that. This was purely private communications between friends, between, colleagues, they were letting off steam. I think we should see it as nothing more than that.”

So much for not sweeping it under the rug.  Once again there is no on-point refutation of the allegations. Pachauri goes on to say that there is no possibility that the Fourth Assessment Report could include incorrect or misleading data because there are too many checks and balances and that he would use CRU’s data in the future as their research has always been “totally above board”. Lucky for the UN that Pachauri is capable enough to resolve this issue just prior to the beginning of the Copenhagen summit.

The Copenhagen climate summit, a 14 day global warming support party thrown by Pachauri and the UN, began on December 7th and it’s first action was to release a multi-country editorial published in 56 newspapers in 45 countries and in 20 languages full of doomsday fear mongering decrying “climate change will ravage our planet and with it our prosperity and security” unless we take wide-spread and vastly expensive action immediately. Note that it does not say ‘might ravage’, but ‘will ravage’ and assures our impending destruction at our own greenhouse gas producing hands.

What do they say is the absolute necessity- the mobilization of $10 BILLION by 2012. While it would be a proposed global effort, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs stated,

“The United States will pay its fair share of that amount and other countries will make substantial commitments as well.”

Sadly, there was no mention on what exactly ‘our fair share’ would entail, but given our current deficit, a 10% national unemployment rate and our recent policy of borrowing from China to bail us out, our fair share of $10 BILLION would seem a poor plan if we are not facing certain doom from rising temperatures.

Thankfully, the UN Officals have already said that without legislation passing in the US (read: cap and trade) the proposed treaty is unlikely to make it off the ground. President Obama will be making an apperance at the summit at the end of the event and I would guess it will be more of the same from this administration, absolutely nothing will result from it.

So where does this leave our little blue planet? As Phillip Ellis Jackson from Intellectual Conservative put it:

So what if reducing our dependence on fossil fuels doesn’t really impact the climate the way we originally thought? It makes the air cleaner. And besides, going green is the more responsible way to act anyway. Is a Western lifestyle with its reliance on big houses, big cars, fast food, and red meat good for us anyway? Wouldn’t we all be better off if we changed our ways? Okay, sure, maybe the sun and the natural cycles of the Earth have more to do with the planet’s climate than SUVs and factories, but being overweight can kill you. You need to change for the sake of the planet, and your own good.

He has a point, but it doesn’t get climate scientists off the hook. Pachauri’s investigation may be complete, but Russell’s is just beginning and is likely to take much longer due to there being some reported dilligence by UEA. If it does finally come out that man-made climate change isn’t the horror we have been lead to believe then reducing fossil fuel dependance, reducing greenhouse gas emmissions by developing nations and out other planet killing habits stop being emergencies that allow leglislation and billion dollar government payouts and become like all good hippie movements- social and grassroots rather than hellfire and damnation.

RadicalExclusion.com will continue to follow Climategate and report back here.