Dishonest global warming scientists feeding us lies

Last year, my column about "global warming rope-a-dope" started out: "Americans have been rope-a-doped into believing that global warming is going to destroy the planet. Scientists who have been skeptical about man-made global warming have been called traitors or handmaidens of big oil." New evidence proves that climatologists and environmental policy advocates have not only fed us lies, engaged in scientific and academic fraud but committed criminal acts as well.

Last month, Russian computer hackers obtained thousands of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England. CRU has the world's largest temperature data set. In collaboration with scientists around the world, including the U.S., its research and mathematical models form the basis of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 global warming report.

The e-mails involved communication among climate researchers and policy advocates around the world who brazenly discuss both the destruction and hiding of data that does not support their global-warming claims. They discuss criminally deleting data rather than comply with Freedom of Information Act requests. There's also discussion of faking data for journals such as Nature, conspiring to keep opposing science out of peer-reviewed journals (where they controlled the editorial boards), and using statistical "tricks" to hide the cooling period of the last 10 years. One e-mail said, "The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." Another said, "it would be nice to try to 'contain' the putative 'MWP,' even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back." MWP refers to the Medieval Warm Period (A.D. 800 to 1300) when the Earth was much warmer than it is now. This bothers the global warmers because they can't blame the temperature increase a thousand years ago on sport utility vehicles, coal-burning power plants, incandescent bulbs and 60-inch TV screens.

Editors of professional journals, who were willing to publish articles that disagreed with the warmers, were forced to resign — as was in the cases of editors at Climate Research and Geophysical Research Letters. A flagrant example of suppression is found in CRU director Phil Jones' letter to Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann that questions whether the work of academics who question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the IPCC report, which represents the environmental extremist's view on climate science. Jones writes, "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!"