Slanted Science

Oh dear. The Climate Research Center of the University of Anglia, UK, has had its computers hacked by persons unknown. Files stolen during the hack were posted to a rapidly-closed Russian server, but later disseminated across the internet. They seem to indicate that the field’s leading scientists have been colluding to silence those colleagues whose research does not promote their own hysterical viewpoints.
Photo credit: Fillies Wo/UNEP/Still Pictures

Global warming, recently rebranded as the less-specific ‘climate change‘, is a huge worldwide industry. It has generated billions in income for those canny enough to exploit it well (Al Gore, for example), and millions in grants for a previously poorly-funded research area.

The problem is, scientists – like politicians – have massive egos. These guys make Simon Cowell seem shy and demure, and that can lead to issues when it seems like the party may be coming to an end. In this case, the party is the climate change financial bonanza, and the end may be heralded by increasing public apathy and even disbelief about the end-of-times meteorological prophecies.

With the prospect of diminishing remuneration and public profiles, we have long suspected that those with a vested interest in maintaining fear of climate change may occasionally stretch the truth. Do the stolen files suggest any such thing? Let’s see the contents of a couple of emails sent between the center’s director, Phil Jones, and a US collaborator, Michael Mann, as reported by The Washington Post.

In questioning whether work which doubts the connection between man and global climate change should be included in a prestigious report:

I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

In discussing how they can stop a journal from publishing the work of climate change sceptics:

Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.  [The reply:] I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.

This is a discussion between two senior scientists which suggests bullying the editors of scientific journals. It is vital that these journals, and their editors, are absolutely impartial when it comes to publishing research. If the science is sound then, no matter how much it may upset others, the paper should be accepted. That is the longstanding basis on which science is built.

Jones and Mann did not comment. We await further details with great interest.

Don’t Hold Your Breath, But This May Lead To: A more detailed look at climate change science and its scientists.

Here’s some climate change books currently selling well at Amazon.com. Including Mr Gore’s.