by Frank Beckman, Detroit News, November 27. 2009
[Excerpt] It turns out that our planet has been safe from man all along, and the climate change alarmists knew it.
That's the conclusion to be drawn from the disclosure of e-mails -- authenticity not disputed -- between so-called climate experts involved with the University of Anglia's Climate Research Unit in Britain, which had been the center of the anthropogenic global warming universe.
[Excerpt] As Jones wrote to one-time United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author John Christy in one of his e-mails, "I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn't being political, it is being selfish." (link)
Comment: I can hardly contain my outrage over this. As one who believed the science of global warming for many years, I feel I have been deceived. I am outraged not only over the deception but outraged at the general conspiracy of silence on this issue. Why is no major network digging into this story? Are there no people of integrity who feel they were betrayed and who want accountability? Should the White house, members of Congress, Heads of State, and the General Secretary of the UN not be calling for an investigation? Should not this be the topic under discussion at Copenhagen? Did these scientist not break some laws? Taking vast amounts of money and doctoring data to produce predetermined outcomes should be a violation of some law. This makes me question other scientific research. This makes me inclined to never trust my government again on anything. This makes me think that science is for sale to the highest bidder. We deserve answers.
Top Stories
Posts
Having spent many years in academia and having applied for many government grants (and receiving virtually none), I can tell you how difficult the government makes it for researchers to ask for--let alone get--money. Certainly one of the implicit (though never mentioned criteria) is that the researcher must be conducting a study that coincides with an "acceptable" agenda. This probably explains why my cutting edge research on sarcasm received so little funding. Now, if I had been studying how sarcasm affected global warming or terrorism or anything politically "in" I would probably have had more success in getting funded (but then again, maybe not).
ReplyDeleteAnd just wait until the same scientific unraveling happens for the scientists who hype the false theory evolution. It's only a matter of time.
ReplyDeleteI keep quiet on this topic because if you are even in a let's-be-cautious-about-conclusions mode as regards climate change you are simply hooted out of the room. I'm no longer actively in a research position, but there was/is simply no other point of view that any one will seriously listen to. Science completely aside, I get really wary when there is only one acceptable conclusion. That's not science. Look at how Michael Chrichton was condemned for State of Fear, and that was FICTION, but the powerful knew that he had an audience and some "poor fool" would consider it a valid point of view.
ReplyDelete