AGW Unravels

The AGW scare has always been fomented under secret climate models, secret data manipulations, and known bad data inputs such as monitor locations in hot urban areas and tree ring data cherry picking, along with outright repression of dissent.

Now a body blow has been delivered to the whole sordid affair. The secret data stash at the IPCC’s cache, the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) has been breached by an unknown hacker, and some 61 MB of data has been released to the blogosphere. The Hadley CRU has confirmed the hack, and the Telegraph carries the news to the world.

Among the released information is a very long list of emails that, if true, are incriminating in several ways. According to James Delingpole at the Telegraph,

“When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

“Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

At one point a scientist, Kevin Trenberth, concludes that because the models don’t reflect the data, the data must be wrong:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at
>>>>>> the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data
>>>>>> published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there
>>>>>> should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.
>>>>>> Our observing system is inadequate.

Not the models that are wrong, of course, it's the data.

At another point several scientists collude via email to make certain that previous emails had been destroyed.

And data manipulation is revealed, such as the revision of the Medieval Warming Period because that doesn’t fit the models.

At another point, an attack on a peer-reviewed publication is sought to be organized for allowing the employment of an editor who has allowed articles by AGW skeptics to be published.

When all these purloined files have been read, this will surely require a masterpiece in bullet dodging by the AGW crowd.

One thing is fairly certain. This scandal will not be covered by the mainstream media until it is absolutely unable to contain it and withhold it any longer.