Rear Mirror: Top Scientists Assess Climate Change Emails

Source:  Suite 101.c0m

Full Analysis of Global Warming Scandal

by John O’Sullivan

Dr. John P. Costella examined 1079 leaked emails and 72 other documents from the computers of the UK’s Climatic Research Unit to reveal ‘shocking misconduct and fraud.’

Dr. Costella?s study has been widely accepted by all sides of the global warming debate as a faultless assessment. Climategate publicly began on November 19, 2009 allegedly pointing to a conspiracy to fraudulently bolster greenhouse gas theory. The British mainstream media, more than any other nation, have widely reported on the scandal. The Daily Telegraph notably carried the story.

The Australian physicist documents, step by step, flawed scientific procedure, over-arching concerns with personal and professional interests and how an elite of climatologists discussed immorally securing ?research? funding and evading tax payments. The emails cover correspondence between international climatologists over a 13-year period up to November 2009.

Does the Evidence Point to Climate Crimes?

Yes, as reported in The Times of London ‘University tried to mislead MPs on climate change e-mails? (February 27, 2010) referring to the decision of the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Only the statute of limitations thwarted criminal charges on breaches of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), while further issues of serious fraud are yet to be decided. Examples of specific quotations most often referred to from those leaked emails include evidence supportive of:

  • Manipulation of evidence:

?I?ve just completed Mike?s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith?s to hide the decline.? [Jones: CRU email 942777075.txt, Nov. 16 1999]

  • Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

?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. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.? [Trenberth: CRU email 1255352257.txt, October 12, 2009]