The Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia has been found guilty under the ‘Freedom of Information Act’ for refusing to allow others to see their data. What an indictment of a scientific establishment who claim through the IPCC that their papers are peer reviewed. They are peer reviewed - if you can call it that- but by other IPCC contributors , in other words only by those who have already subscribed to the orthodoxy.
Of course we all know now why they were so reluctant. I have looked at a great many of the 1000 or so emails hacked out of their computers and am appalled at the lack of scientific objectivity I found there. Not objective science at all but much more akin to those early scientists who built up a whole new form of celestial mechanics in a desperate attempt to retain an earth centric planetary system. The scientists working at the CRU have made an assumption (one that is financially beneficial for their research) and are looking for the evidence to back it up, and because they are not finding it have had to resort to slight of hand (or to use their own words, ‘apply a trick’ or ‘beef it up’) to make it fit. This is not science, its science fiction.
BBC National Evening News today ( 28/1/10 ) covered this story but used it as an unashamedly blatant opportunity for AGW disaster propaganda, running film of calving glaciers in the background throughout the report. The BBC clearly stand firmly behind the AGW orthodoxy enabling their Science Correspondent David Shukman to present the few facts the report contained in a way that masked the truth. He suggested for example that the CRU could quiet justifiably have been irritated by the persistent requests to examine their data because they came from unqualified nuisances who wanted to use the data to damage the CRU. Of course if the data had shown good objective empirical research it would have been very difficult to damage anyone. Now they have been hung out to dry!
Anyone who believes in AGW without having taken a serious look at the evidence cannot convincingly argue that they have not been brainwashed. Can you?