When is a scientist no longer a scientist?
Al Ritter
With the latest “break in” at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Center, some serious questions come to light. Science has never been an exact discipline; it has always been a collection of theories, thoughts, and data. The truly best scientists use the data to present a hypothesis to explain some sort of quirk of nature.
Al Ritter
With the latest “break in” at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Center, some serious questions come to light. Science has never been an exact discipline; it has always been a collection of theories, thoughts, and data. The truly best scientists use the data to present a hypothesis to explain some sort of quirk of nature.
The media savvy left has tried to explain away the exposed emails by saying that people are cherry picking sentences from emails to show the intent in an unfair light. Actually the emails are not only presented in their entirety, they were also shown in a chronological order. The defenders of the global warming crowd including John Holdren, have said that these are merely emails from a few scientists and don’t represent the main body of global warming scientists. True they are but a few scientists, but the University of East Anglia is a clearing house for raw data collected by scientists to promote the position of global warming on an international basis. The raw data figures have been conveniently removed from the archives, so that no comparison can now be done to see which data was fraudulent, and which was accurately recorded. Requests in the past to supply proof of the global warming theory have been denied by the University. These records have been guarded with the utmost security until the “break- in,” when shortly after they were reportedly “destroyed.” When exactly is raw data destroyed from such a far reaching theory that affects people world-wide?
When a scientist willfully changes data to support a personal position, the scientist then becomes nothing more than a politician. The sad part is, when these same “scientists” are the main contributors to the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who does yearly reports based on data they collect, edit, and then present to the United Nations. Of the ones involved in the email debacle, so far three are well known scientists who all contribute to that report, and maybe more will surface as time goes on. To say this tainted data is just a small part of the overall picture is just misleading. It would be like saying that only 3 passengers on a transatlantic flight had the black plague, but you don’t have to worry.
The overall community of scientists should be livid! To all the scientists out there who supply data to other scientists higher on the food chain to formulate theories……….you need to be more selective! Think for one minute about the data collector who barely makes a living doing what he/she loves. They supply these figures to people who alter them……….it makes the whole industry look bad!
The IPCC was formed to support the UN position of global warming, and the email exposures have verified that. The UN pushed by way of the IPCC the Kyoto Protocol, which is set to expire in 2012. Am I mad at this situation? You are damn right I am, these figures have taken money from people’s pockets the world over. If it is proven that even one piece of data was altered and then presented to the UN to support tax increases, I think that scientist should be open to litigation world-wide! It would be my recommendation to dissolve the IPCC, and if need be create a new panel, one with complete transparency that will represent BOTH sides of the debate and not just a political position, but I digress this IS the UN we are talking about…….
If you like the article you just read, please take the time to subscribe to Al’s personal subscription list, go here, http://www.blogger.com/MDpatriot@verizon.net and type “subscribe” in the subject box, Thanks!
