Climategate: Man-made Global Warming In Question After Data Manipulation Revealed

The main stream media has given almost no coverage to the Climategate scanda and much to their dismay the 'debate' has been reopened. Many years ago, Al Gore told us the debate was over, global warming is real and manmade. In response to the Climategate emails, he has told us that like gravity, man-made global warming is pure physics and cannot be disputed.

Liberals in congress tell us that “the deniers want to create a Siberian tree ring circus,” states Representative Ed Markey (D-Mass -- chairman of the House Select Energy and Global Warming Committee). They attempt to divert focus from the details of the emails and code released from Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University (CRU) by making jokes, calling critics names and indignantly saying they won't discuss the details of emails obtained by committing a crime.

It would seem that rather than cracking jokes and calling those asking for answers, “deniers”, Congressman Markey and other liberals in Washington are themselves in denial. These Congressmen and Senators should be the very people calling for an investigation into the possibility of wrong doing at the East Anglia CRU. They don't hesitate to hold hearings on steroid use in Major League Baseball, or hold hearings on whether there should be a college football playoff, but when it comes to manmade global warming, it's jokes and denials.

The leaked emails and files have raised a great many questions, but only if you are actually seeking the truth, rather than forwarding a political agenda.

A review of code files and emails shows an apparent manipulation of temperatures data, when the actual data didn't show the temperature rise that researchers at the CRU wanted to publish. The programmer that did the work used the term “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!” when he described the ‘fudge factor’ he used to show an increase in temperature readings that the raw data failed to show.

In other code files, this same programmer described creating fictitious temperature monitoring stations, when none existed, because when he was given the task of cleaning up the CRU database, he found that he had data that simply didn't correspond to any monitoring station. In some cases he had temperature data that started a decade before the temperature monitoring station was built, and in other cases he had temperature readings from locations (Lat/Lon) where no temperature monitoring station existed. He recounts how he attempted to match up the temperature data to real monitoring stations whenever possible, but when it wasn't, he just created new monitoring stations. Joking that it's the kind of thing the CRU researchers do, so why shouldn't he.

It's important to understand that the East Anglia CRU is considered the gold-standard of climate research centers. It's data and publications were the primary sources for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report, which is the bases for the Kyoto Treaty, along with the basis of the negotiations going on in Copenhagen. More important to Americans is that the EPA's primary basis for declaring CO2 a poisonous gas that the EPA can regulate was the IPCC assessment report. The EPA is now strong arming Congress, stating if a cap and trade bill is not passed, the EPA will implement punitive regulations on US corporations that will be far more stringent than contained in the House cap and trade bill.

If manipulation of data (that the EPA ultimately relied on in their ruling to regulate CO2 output) wasn’t bad enough, the CRU Climategate emails also show that Michael Mann (Penn State), Phil Jones, the head of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, and others worked to keep all research from researchers that didn't support man-made global warming out of peer reviewed journals. Phil Jones stated that he would be contacting the Climate Research journal and stating he would no longer have anything to do with the journal until they 'rid themselves' of the 'troublesome' editor that was publishing studies that didn't support man-made global warming or that brought into question the concept of unprecedented global warming, regardless of the cause.

Congressman Markey and other liberals in Washington keep stating that the emails don’t change the scientific fact that the earth is warming and man is the cause. They keep recounting versions of Al Gore’s “the debate is over on global warming” line, and are not even open to alternative viewpoints and research.

If the liberals in Congress were really concerned about the truth, rather than focused on furthering their political agendas, they would be the leader in calling for independent reviews of the data that Congress, the IPCC and EPA have relied upon. If there is any chance the data is suspect, whether due to intentional manipulation, or if it is incomplete due to suppression of opposing views, then how can Congress KNOW that their conclusions and subsequent legislation are in the best interest of America.

Congresses job is not to defend questionable ethics by the VERY scientists that Congress relied on when writing and passing global warming legislation, but instead their job is to get it right.

By: John Halberg

Article Directory: http://www.articledashboard.com

John Halberg writes articles on politics and current events for conservative blogs and news sites, including Liberal Whoppers. You can read more about Climategate and the East Anglia CRU emails at Liberal Whoppers Climategate page.