Okay...I've waited to see how this Climategate stuff was going to play out before commenting. Now, it seems that enough is known to make some observations.
The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has been one of the most influential organizations in the world in the man-made global warming movement. The e-mails and data that were obtained (whether they were hacked as originally reported or available on a public server all along as was later reported is not important) shows a pattern of obfuscation and deceit by many of the scientists involved. As Christopher Booker of the Telegraph reports, Several members of the CRU "have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws."
If the science truly supported the man made global warming claims, you would expect that the CRU would be not only willing, but insistent to share their data. This is the way science is done...peer review. Real scientists want to have their findings validated by the wider scientific community. Peer review can validate theories or invalidate them...but in this way, we move closer and closer to discovering the truth. Unless, the truth is not the goal.
The apologists have been out in strength. Some have tried to make the method of the data release the issue...was it legal...was it fair. Some are making all sort of excuses for the cover-up. They say that since this is such an important issue, the CRU did not want to delay necessary immediate action because they didn't quite have all of the proof they needed. And some I've seen just claim that it doesn't matter what the data shows because the ice caps are melting and polar bears are dieing. I have not seen anyone, though, denying the data's authenticity.
The CRU's data has been used as a key factor in the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommendations to spend trillions of dollars to avert what they predict to be catastrophic effects of climate change. The UN and other agencies have made recommendations for international taxes, and other global governance. Now, however, the IPCC says that it was only one of many inputs.
The CRU defends themselves by saying that their data matches up with the data of other organizations such as NASA and NOAA. Since we know CRUs data was fudged, this does not really provide defense of their data, but does call to question the data of the other organizations. There is much to be gained by those who would administer the climate laws...they certainly may have corrupted more than one organization.
So you may be a believer or an unbeliever. I do not believe that human activity has significant impact on the natural climate change cycles. But regardless of which side you fall on, are you willing to give up national sovereignty, trillions of dollars and personal freedoms on uncertain science and fudged data? I'm not. This needs to be stopped now and a full investigation should be done by outside organizations.
