"What they've done is search through stolen personal emails - confidential between colleagues who often speak in a language they understand and is often foreign to the outside world," Penn State's Michael Mann told Reuters Wednesday. Mr. Mann added that this has made "something innocent into something nefarious."
Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, "My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues."
That is of course a lie. Steve Millory exposed the fact that the emails and data were not stolen.
Since news of embarrassing, if not incriminating emails broke last Friday, it has become clear that the CRU computer system was not “hacked” and the emails were not stolen. In fact, the file containing the emails had been assembled by CRU staff in preparation for compliance with a Freedom of Information request. The file was then stored in a publicly accessible portion of the CRU computer network — making it just a matter of time before someone discovered it. Why the file was so stored may never be known, but that’s not really what’s important.
Nothing illegal or unethical was done to affect the file’s release.
In his email dated May 2008 Mr. Mann regarding the U.N.'s Fourth Assessment Report he said "Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?", I guess he would want to word that differently so it reads better if he knew it would be exposed. Trouble is how do you word "hide the evidence" better?
Obviously from the documents and messages, Mann and Jones and others rigged the climate-tracking game from the start. According to them, only those, whose work has been published in select scientific journals, after having gone through the "peer-review" process, can be relied on to critique the science. Challenges from critics outside this cabal are dismissed and disparaged.
Stephen McIntyre's web site, Climateaudit.org, checks the findings of climate scientists and often publishes the mistakes he finds. The result of this exposure has resulted in Mr. Mann being force to publish a correction to one of his papers. Mann had this to say to the New York Times about the leaked emails "Those such as [Stephen] McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted."
In a march 2003 email Mann noted "This was the danger of always criticizing the skeptics for not publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature'. Obviously, they found a solution to that-take over a journal!" This came out after the journal "Climate Research" published a paper not to Mr. Mann's liking, and went so far as to say "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board." This Cabal has tried and is more or less successful at excluding acceptance of any publication that publishes views of which they don't approve.
Vincent Gray IPCC expert reviewer, documents how proof of fraud and exclusion of critical data has been endemic in climate research for over a decade in his Nov.27 article CLICK HERE TO READ
Since the small group — revealed within the CRU emails — control most of the peer reviewers, very few peer reviewed papers which criticize that group are allowed to appear in the most prominent published literature which dominates the academic establishment.
I have only been able to find a place to release my criticisms on the internet, now the only realm where unfettered scientific discussion is possible.
Mann's cabal uses the excuse that because their view is the most published most accepted that it is fact, when they control the peer review system and exclude and disparage any data that doesn't support their pre-conceived conclusions. Seems like the logical fallacy, Circular Reasoning, to me.
If their data is indisputable, why do they have to rig the system?
No comments:
Post a Comment