The Inquisition of Global Warming
A Commentary by Debra J. Saunders
This just in from the Times of London: After the leak of highly embarrassing e-mail messages from the University of East Anglia's influential Climatic Research Unit, CRU has been forced to admit that it dumped "the original raw" climate data used to bolster the case for human-caused global warming, while retaining only the "value-added" -- read: massaged -- data.
In short, the CRU dumped the scientific data, but archived information that supports its conclusions. "It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years," wrote Times environment editor Jonathan Leake.
Of course, global warming skeptics see Climategate as vindication. For years, global warming activists have maintained that they alone could claim the mantle of dispassionate science, while skeptics were venal, nutty or both.
The publication of these e-mails puts an end to that happy conceit, as they reveal a small cabal of scientists obsessed with obliterating dissenting scholarship and destroying the reputations of any who stood in their way.
For years, I've read global warming activists cite the work of UC San Diego science historian Naomi Oreskes, who looked at 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed articles from 1993 and 2003 and found, "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position" in favor of man-made global warming.
No surprise, her unbelievable claim was wrong. In a leaked e-mail, CRU Director Phil Jones complained of a 2003 peer-reviewed article that departed from global warming orthodoxy. Jones went so far as to boast, "I will be e-mailing the journal (Climate Research) to tell them I'm having nothing to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," who approved printing the piece.
In 2004, Jones said he would keep two troublesome papers out of a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report "somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
In another e-mail, Pennsylvania State University environmental sciences Professor Michael Mann proposed considering a boycott of Climate Research. But that's nothing compared with Benjamin D. Santer, a climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, who, the Washington Post reported, said he was tempted to beat up skeptic Pat Michaels.
Polls show that Americans are cooling on the notion of man-made global warming. I must credit the bully mentality of activists, whose claims often defy common sense -- and at times, simple decency.
The defying-common-sense part: They claim that no credible scientist departs from the IPCC orthodoxy. Counter with some names -- Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, William Gray, John Christy, Don Easterbrook, Piers Corbyn, Roy Spencer, Pat Michaels, James O'Brien -- and they impugn their scientific credentials.
If they have to redefine peer review, they'll do that, too. And then they ask you to trust them on the dumped CRU data. After all, they're scientists.
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM
See Other Political Commentary
See Other Commentary by Debra J. Saunders
Views expressed in this column are those of the author, not those of Rasmussen Reports.
Rasmussen Reports is a media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion information.
We conduct public opinion polls on a variety of topics to inform our audience on events in the news and other topics of interest. To ensure editorial control and independence, we pay for the polls ourselves and generate revenue through the sale of subscriptions, sponsorships, and advertising. Nightly polling on politics, business and lifestyle topics provides the content to update the Rasmussen Reports web site many times each day. If it's in the news, it's in our polls. Additionally, the data drives a daily update newsletter and various media outlets across the country.
Some information, including the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll and commentaries are available for free to the general public. Subscriptions are available for $4.95 a month or 34.95 a year that provide subscribers with exclusive access to more than 20 stories per week on upcoming elections, consumer confidence, and issues that affect us all. For those who are really into the numbers, Platinum Members can review demographic crosstabs and a full history of our data.
To learn more about our methodology, click here.