Some of the leading scientists from the “Holy Church of Global Warming Moonbats” have proved they have learned a very important rule from the playbook of US President Barack Obama: when confronted with facts that can cause you trouble, defend yourself by attacking the person(s) delivering the facts, call the news a big lie, or say it was taken totally out of context. And NEVER, back up your attacks with facts.

If attacking the reporter instead of the news doesn’t work, then they fall back on the ACORN playbook: toss out any incriminating evidence.

President Obama traditionally defends himself by attacking the “reporter” not the news. Just ask Fox News for one. That’s how he deflected the firestorm surrounding Jeremiah Wright association, the porkulus earmarks and the opponents of Obamacare.

CSU Scientists are using that strategy to deflect the storm arising from those “stolen” emails indicating a cover-up of contrary data by those scientists and other global warming proponents:

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Lid updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“Three leading scientists who on Tuesday released a report documenting the accelerating pace of climate change said the scandal that erupted last week over hacked emails from climate scientists is nothing more than a “smear campaign” aimed at sabotaging December climate talks in Copenhagen.

“We’re facing an effort by special interests who are trying to confuse the public,” said Richard Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Scripps Institution of Oceanography and a lead author of the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Dissenters see action to slow global warming as “a threat,” he said.”

The release of the emails was not confusing, in fact when the email from CSU Scientist Phil Jones saying, “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline “was released, things became much clearer.

By the way, the Mike mentioned above is Professor Michael Mann, inventor of the global warming hockey stick diagram, of whom it is assumed used his “nature trick” to create his chart which remains at the center of the global warming hysteria.

As far as the charge that dissenters seeing the suspect climate change data as a threat, well, Guilty as charged. The CSU scientists and their ilk have taken a theory that was shaky even before the “stolen emails.” They have tried to shove it down our throats and haven’t allowed any peer reviewed research disagreeing with their funky data to be presented. Add to it the politicians who see it as an opportunity for more government control, and worldwide income redistribution, of course the people who haven’t drank the climate change Kool Aid think it’s a threat

Professor Mann says the emails were cherry-picked:

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. Suddenly, all these are subject to cherry picking,”

Didn’t we hear the same thing about Jeremiah Wright last year? Weren’t we told “Goddam America” was taken out of context? But let’s give Dr. Mann the benefit of the doubt, pray tell, what did this email really mean?

“The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !”

Dr Mann and his global scientist friends keep talking about the global warming consensus, its not consensus if it is manufactured through funky data, strong arming and cover-ups. Despite their bully tactics, the past few months have seen many scientists breaking through the wall of silence to publish opposing data.

Some (but by all means not all) of the recent information raising doubts about the global warming science includes:

  • A recommendation by Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, former director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks to canceling the upcoming Copenhagen Conference because there is not enough data to prove that global warming is man-made.
  • The paper published by Scientist Mojib Latif said we were facing 10-20 years of global as the result of changes to ocean currents and temperatures in the North Atlantic, a feature known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO).

The global warming Scientists’ refusal of even considering the contrary data show their efforts have nothing to do with global warming, or science, it is all about the perpetuation of their jobs and the multi-billion-dollar industry they helped found. If they were truly interested in the science, they would be examining the alternate claims rather than putting them aside without inquiry.

Facing all of the pressure from the “stolen emails,” the scientists have now taken step two, a real live ACORN-like document dump.

Scientists at the CRU have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. That means the basic calculations used to create the man-made global warming hysteria cannot be checked by neutral observers.

“The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.”

In other words, their dogs have eaten their homework. It’s more likely the data was dumped to make disproving their conclusions impossible.

“In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the clearing house for the reconstruction of past climate and temperatures. Scientists not part of the climate-change mafia have wanted to examine how they got to their numbers, to prove or disprove their theories. That is now impossible.

“Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said. “

“Trust us” It’s a climate change scientist code word which means “Eff YOU!, we are not sharing the data.”