|
"Climategate": Peer-Review System Was Hijacked
By Warming Alarmists
Dissenting viewpoints on warming were shut out
regardless of their scientific merit
|
|
|
One of the most striking revelations to immediately emerge from
the "climategate" scandal has been references to efforts
by scientists espousing the human-caused warming theory to exclude
contrary viewpoints from important scientific publications.
Among the thousands of emails and documents hacked
or leaked from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University
last week are several references to an agenda to shut down scientific
debate on global warming by stifling counter-evidence from other
scientists.
Dating back to 1996, the emails show that both
U.S. and U.K. based scientists referred to any research offering
alternate viewpoints as "disinformation","misinformation"
or "crap"
that needs to be kept out of the public domain.
The emails include deliberations amongst the scientists
regarding efforts to make sure that reports from the UN's Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change include their own research and exclude
that of dissenting scientists.
In one of the emails, Phil Jones, the director
of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist
Michael Mann of Penn State University We "will
keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the
peer-review literature is!"
This is a startling quote, given that Jones and
Mann as climate scientists have the authority to review papers
and determine whether they are eligible to be published by scientific
journals.
Mann even discussed how to destroy
a journal that had published papers with contrary views,
telling his colleagues that he believed it had been "hijacked
by a few skeptics on the editorial board" who had "staged
a coup".
"Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues
in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or
cite papers in, this journal." Mann wrote.
In another
of the emails, Tom Wigley, climate scientist at
the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR),
says that the journal in question, Climate Research,
"encourages the publication of crap science 'in order to
stimulate debate'".
Wigley noted that the publisher of the journal
should be told that it is being "perceived" as a vehicle
of "misinformation", adding that the word "perceived"
should be emphasized because "whether it is true or not
is not what the publishers care about-- it is how the journal
is seen by the community that counts."
Wigley also wrote that a group of 50+ scientists
could be gotten together to put their names to a letter to add
weight to the claim and hopefully help to remove the editorial
board of the journal.
Other emails show that some of the scientists
declined to make their data available to independent scientists
whose views they disagreed with, clear evidence that they were
simply unwilling to engage in scientific debate - a core ethic
of the scientific community.
Renowned climate scientist Dr
Tim Ball sums up the stunning gravitas of the leaks
with regards to the process of peer-reviewing and the publication
of papers on climate change in journals.
“What you’ve got here is confirmation
of the small group of scientists who, by the way, Professor
Wegman who was asked to arbitrate in the debate about the hockey
stick, he identified 42 people who were publishing together
and also peer-reviewing each other’s literature."
Dr Ball explains.
"So there’s a classic example of the
kind of thing that bothered me. About twenty years ago, I started
saying ‘Well why are they pushing the peer review?’...
And now of course we realise it’s because they had control
of their own process. That’s clearly exposed in these
emails.”
“On a global scale it’s frightening because this
group of people not only control the Hadley Centre, which controls
the data on global temperature through the Hadley Climate Research
Unit but they also control the IPCC and they’ve manipulated
that. And of course the IPCC has become the basis in all governments
for the Kyoto protocol, the Copenhagen accord and so on….”
We have long covered the fact that the so called
"scientific consensus" on global warming is wholly
manufactured and that there are thousands of scientists who
have differing viewpoints to the human-induced warming theorists.
Indeed, over two years ago we reported the fact
that a survey of over 500 peer reviewed scientific research
papers on climate change, written between 2004 and 2007, concluded
that less
than half endorsed the "consensus view,"
that human activity is contributing to considerable global climate
change.
We now have clear evidence that a concerted effort
has been made by the IPCC connected climate scientists to block
dissenting opinion on climate change, regardless of it's scientific
merit.
"This is horrible," said Pat Michaels,
a climate scientist at the Cato Institute in Washington who
is directly
threatened with physical violence in the emails.
"This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become
increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming
as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn't questionable
practice, this is unethical."
John Christy, a scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville
attacked in the emails for asking that an IPCC report include
dissenting viewpoints, said, "It's disconcerting to realize
that legislative actions this nation is preparing to take, and
which will cost trillions of dollars, are based upon a view
of climate that has not been completely scientifically tested."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex
Jones LIVE, A Fourth Hour Of Streaming TV Now Added To The Infowars
Radio Show
Click here to get your subscription today!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
|
