IPCC Denies Problems from Climate Gate Revelations

                The head of the United Nations’ Interglobal Panel on Climate Change rejected off-hand any possibility that the IPCC’s recommendations and determinations were tainted by a recent whistle-blower’s 61-megabite leak of East Anglia University (England) Climate Research Unit files and e-mails. The IPCC has determined that global warming IS taking place and that humans are at least in good part responsible. The scandal is known by some as “Warmer Gate,” but more popularly seen as “Climate Gate.

The IPCC and Al Gore shared in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for their findings on global warming. However, Climate Gate documents and e-mails taken from CRU seem to show a strong and continual pattern of CRU recommendations ignoring the findings of CRU skeptics and the silencing, harassing and ridiculing of all outside voices contrary to the message that global warming was an undeniable fact and that human activity was the prime cause. Some of the e-mails and documents originated as long as thirteen years ago. The top staff of CRU and prominent outsiders like Gore and Obama Science Czar John Holdren have been implicated in the apparently systematic attempt to discredit anything but the CRU “party line.” “The corruption appears to be “systemic,” according to one ex-CRU employee who declined to be identified.

According to the Reuters News Agency, Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the IPCC stood by his panel's 2007 findings, called the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). "This private communication in no way damages the credibility of the AR4 findings," he told Reuters in an e-mail exchange.  However, among the thousands of other documents and e-mails one from the CRU head Phil Jones has drawn unrelenting interest: Jones asked four CRU employees to delete a series of AR4 e-mails apparently because of worry about a Freedom of Information Act problematical request about AR4. The Jones’ action is seen here:

“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.”

The e-mails show that the CRU has taken part in the trash-canning of much, if not most, of the raw temperature data upon which their predictions of global warming are based and which most influenced the IPCC. Thus NO ONE can check their data, supposedly garnered over the past 150 years and supposedly showing a clear pattern of temperature increase. Once the Climate Gate information was posted upon the web, CRU immediately said that requests for the data under the Freedom of Information legislation could not now be honored. CRU claimed the original data was dumped to save server space – not a standard scientific procedure. In the e-mails, Jones and others repeatedly discuss the need and methods to stymie climate skeptics seeking access to the raw data, so the disappearance of the raw data has inflamed scientists all over the world.

The mainstream media have refused to pick up on this story which has all the scientific magazines buzzing. Virtually all the non-CRU scientists believe that corrupt action may have occurred, but the MSM is not talking to them. For example the NY Times blamed the “hackers” for illegal activities “undermining” scientific research and called for the U.S. Senate to do more about “global warming.”   Cap and Trade legislation on carbon emissions is currently stalled on the senate floor. Meanwhile Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma and Representative Darrell Issa of California have begun information gathering on Climate Gate and are talking about mounting a probe into CRU’s activities and its effect on U.S. EPA decisions and pending legislation like Cap and Trade. Cap and Trade, if passed will cost the United States $220 Billion per year each and every year the law is in effect.

Obama Science Czar John Holdren is seen in several e-mails trying to bedazzle the editors of scientific journals who wanted to know on what basis CRU and other global warming theorists were deliberating omitting data from the Medieval Warm Period. Holdren appears to be bullying the editor and in so many words saying, “I'm the authority. . .it’s right because I say it is!”

Rajjpuut has only had time to read about 1% of the e-mails and has not yet opened any of the Climate Gate documents, but his conclusions so far are the following:

A.  Most of the e-mails are innocuous, at least to the eyes of a non-scientist

1. Trying to intimidate and control (often succeeding) the editors of

major Scientific journals as well as main stream media like the NY

Times (succeeded 100% there, the Times is a G-W advocate period)

2. Hiding or not revealing data or apparently justifiable opinion

which does not agree with an apparently preconceived notion that

global warming is a scientific fact.

3. Stonewalling; and then shredding and deleting information that

was requested under British Freedom of Information Act provisions and

ultimately claiming to have "lost the data" requested

5. Research being run largely on a secretive basis (with no openness toward

all possibilities) and original data thrown away so NO ONE can check upon CRU

accuracy or methodology.

7. Foul attacks on individual scientists and editors they found troublesome

and demanding (such as laughing and cheering at the deaths of two non-global

warming scientists).

9. Controlling virtually all aspects of climate science and maintaining the fraternity

safely in loyal hands to more easily do so. 

10. Perversion of facts and science: (Jonathon Overpeck "We must get

rid of the Medieval Warm Period") and revising climate history by

manipulation of and "adjustment" of the historical climate records. 

11. Collusion to break laws.

12. Science serving political ends and business ends and constantly seeking

"re-election" via controlling and influencing government and private

grant processes.

13. Totally overlooking the canons of scientific procedure by going into

the question with a mind already closed to all possibilities but one.

14. Eliminating general respect for rogue individual scientists by creating an

ongoing peer review group so that only "acceptable" articles can get published

and all grants and important jobs can only go to people who've published

15. Creating two levels of scientific hierarchy: the orthodox global warming

theorists; and the heretical non-believers who are left powerless.

16. Creating a dummy website for climate conversation and "holding up comments

posted" to decide upon "appropriateness" all the while encouraging loyal

                Back in 2000, when the Nobel Peace Prize was jointly awarded to Al Gore and the United Nations’ IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), Rajjpuut commented to his now ex-wife that “I can’t believe it, every year it’s more and more political . . . Nobel must be rolling over and moaning in his grave!”   The question has become now nine years later,  now that real scientists are saying this is NOT the slam-dunk that the Nobel people thought it was, now that real scientific debate is occurring . . . when will Al Gore give back his prize?

Now, however I feel sorry for the IPCC. Despite all the criticism, they did proper science and their conclusions were scientific, so why in God’s name would they get a “peace prize?”Ah, because as the Nobel Committees realized, the science wasn’t conclusive (which is exactly what the IPCC said) . . . ah, because Gore had done no real science and they couldn’t justify giving him anything at all for no science unless . . . ah because they didn’t like George W. Bush raining on their (The European) leap to judgment on the issue . . . ah, because they found Gore’s movie entertaining . . . ah, because they wanted to make a political statement with their idiotic peace prize decision.   On the other hand, the IPCC did proper science and came to a proper set of conclusions,  to wit:

A.       They called it Global Climate Change (GCC) not “global warming” and they are right

B.      They stated GCC was occurring and they are right**

C.      They stated that greenhouse gas proliferation seemed to be the main causative agent (undoubtedly right, but they hardly paid enough attention to methane released when permafrost melts; methane is 20 times the greenhouse gas that carbon dioxide is)

D.      They stated that small and large climate shifts into colder and warmer eras were commonplace in the earth’s history (absolutely correct)

E.       They stated that the relative effects of man’s negative contributions and the natural processes were impossible to delineate (clearly true)

Unfortunately, the IPCC did not combine all their science with the wonderful investigations done by the History Channel as revealed in their marvelous dvd “Little Ice Age, Big Chill.” If they had, they might have come to a sixth correct conclusion: