Global Warming E-Mails Scandal Show Scientists May Have Cooked the Facts

November 30, 2009 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (103)

By Peter Roff, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

It is starting to look like President Barack Obama, aided and abetted by former Vice President Al Gore, Sens. Barbara Boxer, and John F. Kerry and others, may have lied this nation into a war against man-made global warming.

Preliminary analysis of the contents of thousands of E-mails and documents taken from the computer archives of the Climate Research Unit at England's University of East Anglia—possibly by a hacker, possibly by a whistleblower—indicate a number of the world's most important scientists engaged in research designed to prove that global warming really does exist may have been cooking the books.

As columnist Michael Barone wrote in Sunday's Washington Examiner, "The CRU has been a major source of data on global temperatures, relied on by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But the e-mails suggest that CRU scientists have been suppressing and misstating data and working to prevent the publication of conflicting views in peer-reviewed science periodicals."

If true, the cooking of the temperature data to provide support for the idea that man-made global warming is occurring is a scandal of most serious proportions. It should force policymakers to reconsider the role science plays in the formulation of policy if its conclusions can be manipulated the way those concerning climate change now appear to have been.

Some of those involved in the E-mail chains that are now under examination have concocted what on their face come across as bizarre explanations for some of the things they said, many of which boil down to the notion that the words they used did not mean what they mean. It sort of takes us back to what the meaning of "is" is.

They have been engaged in a political war, using science as a weapon. The E-mails reveal the dangers inherent in relying on "approved science" as the last word on anything, especially if—as it now appears—some of the more influential supporters of the idea of global warming tried very hard to make sure that contrary theories and evidence that countered their assumptions and projections were never allowed to see the light of day, at least in any reputable scientific journal.

The real tragedy in all this is its effect on the common, ordinary citizen of the planet. Because the industrialized world is driven by carbon-based energy, the effort to rein in the release of carbon into the atmosphere has had a very real impact on human productivity and economic growth. People have had their livelihoods, their very way of life threatened by the ivory tower science behind the idea of man-made global warming. And, despite the very real indication that the current studies are unreliable as the basis for anything and that we need to begin all over again, with greater transparency and more effective peer review, the revelations coming from the East Anglia E-mails seem to have no effect on the political process whatsoever. President Obama is still going to Copenhagen and is still going to use the apparently phony data to try and bring the world to a point of agreement on carbon emissions.

Truth, like science, now appears relative.

Tags:
energy policy and climate change,
global warming

Reader Comments Read all comments (103)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

This article isn't news as it's based solely on conjecture. Please delete this article.

Dave of MN 3:43PM May 17, 2013

Dr. Pitruzzello:

How can we check the science if the scientists cannot be trusted to give factual, unbiased data. Did you check with the CRU to find that this is a "no brainer"? This is the problem when we let science be coopted by politics. We cannot trust the answers from the scientists because there is no credibility there now.

You argument about natural power and fossil fuels polluting the planet are specious in my opinion. Fossil fuels ARE natural power, and while the pollute the planet, do we really know that they are greatly contributing to global warming? Mt. St. Helen's eruption in 1980 spewed more pollution in the air than mankind has put there cumulatively, yet all the effects have long been eradicated in our atmosphere.

Anytime we look at the warming of the Earth and we are told to ignore the effects of the sun and the ocean, one has to be suspicious.

I suppose the point is that we have no real way of "checking the science" because the issue has been turned into an emotion driven political issue.

JB

Dr. JB of IN 1:14PM January 06, 2011

How are fossil fuels any less a "natural power" than "nuclear, solar, wind, and tidal?" And, does "tidal" include generation from water flows (hydro-electric)?

The U.S., due to hype and hysteria, has essentially given up on nuclear energy and can find no solution to overcome the NIMBY-ism that prevents local implementation of many alternative sources. We have to give up on the scare tactics and develop true transitional plans that allow weaning of one dependency while creating another.

Marvous M. of MD 9:58PM December 26, 2010

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. Formerly a senior political writer for United Press International, he’s now affiliated with several public policy organizations including Let Freedom Ring, and Frontiers of Freedom. His writing has appeared in National Review, Fox News’ opinion section, The Daily Caller, Politico and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @PeterRoff.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement