The just released (November 2009) hacked Hadley CRU emails, showing alleged malfeasance by proponents of global warming, call into question the concept of cause and effect of global warming. If the science cannot be trusted, the claims of that science and the proposed solutions are seriously compromised.
The most alleged fundamental truths of global warming have been compromised by the very scientists who promote man-caused global warming as an indisputable fact, since they themselves are disputing it in their own emails. One of the world's main climate research centers, University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (commonly called Hadley CRU) had its computers hacked into, and shocking email exchanges between GW advocates were uncovered and revealed. These scientists appear to have been colluding and attempting to distort and control evidence for almost two decades that seriously question the real facts of global warming.
The concept of cause and effect of warming, and the mammoth world-bankrupting costs of proposed corrections to the effects can no longer be trusted. The facts of the emails show climate scientists not only admitting that their supposed unerring climate models simply do not prove what is happening in real time and they have no clue why.
While The New York Times, no friend of skeptical GW scientific studies, was very late in reporting on this earthquake in the conflict on global warming, it quoted Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist who has long faulted evidence pointing to human-driven warming, saying: "This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud ." Al Gore has used these very facts in building his billion dollar global warming cabal.
There are extremely critical issues that the emails reveal.
Hadley CRU director, Phil Jones, confirmed that the emails are authentic. The New York Times attempted to hide the information for days by failing to disclose what it knew for several days, until it simply couldn't ignore the story anymore because of release by other sources. Much like they ignored the ACORN issue until it was forced upon them. Email exchanges between scientists reveal that there were questions about the decline in temperatures as far back as 1999 and one email suggested that we must "hide the decline." The London Telegraph also published more scathing excerpts suggesting manipulation of evidence of whether there really was global warming by the very scientists writing reports critical of skeptics and claiming their warming evidence was irrefutable.
One of the most damning emails described how to control the scientific peer review process, the heart and foundation of science itself, by keeping skeptics from even contributing to the peer review process. The email read: "I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. 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...What do others think?" The New York Times article quoted, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and other scientists discuss gaps in understanding of recent variations in temperature. Skeptic Web sites pointed out one line in particular: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."
This is a gigantic admission, when these same scientists have claimed for years that their climate models predict uncontrolled and unrelenting upward temperatures increases are absolutely accurate. Now, their computer models are proving that they are not as infallible as loudly proclaimed.
Another NYT quote reported some of the emails mused about discrediting skeptic Michaels by challenging the veracity of his doctoral dissertation at the University of Wisconsin claiming he knew his research was wrong. "This shows these are people willing to bend rules and go after other people's reputations in very serious ways," Michaels said.
The musings in emails to manipulate data, the cynical efforts to discredit skeptics, the failure of climate models to predict accurate future impacts of climate change, the conspiracy to eliminate skeptics from the peer review process and the sheer inaccuracy of the so-called "settled science of global warming" makes the question of cause and effect a mute question.
The problem is that these revelations may be just the tip of the iceberg. If these distortions, scientific manipulations, lies and attacks on skeptics are at the heart of the one of the four most respected climate warming institutions in the world, it begs the questions, "What will the hidden emails, conclusions and manipulations lurking in the other three, reveal?"
It would behoove, NASA and its climate director, James Hansen the others, to adopt an ultra-transparent process to open their emails, conclusions, musings and questions for all to see.
Otherwise, the causes and effects of global warming will remain in question and the economic upheaval proposed GW solutions are bound to cause, should not be implemented until they are resolved. If Hadley is compromised, are others centers of global warming advocacy trustworthy? Have these other organizations and institutions employed similar tactics of attack and behind the scenes undermining of valid and credentialed skeptics.
Global warming's cause and effect is now in question in the face of these devastating revelations in the global warming advocacy community and of critical concern to the world at large. To act in haste now, would be irresponsible.