Climategate Story Gaining Steam
I got this of Accuweather's climate change blog.
AccuWeather.com's Katie Fehlinger completed her one-on-one video interview with Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State on Tuesday. Mann is one of the climate scientists that was named in the climategate story. It looks like she will have enough material for at least a three-part interview series. She informed me that the first part of the interview should be online sometime Thursday, assuming no technical issues. I know she had a long list of questions for Dr. Mann. Once that video becomes available, I will post it right here.
As I scan through the web I am seeing many more articles, editorials and responses from scientists in regards to the 'climategate' controversy, which in my opinion is a good thing. The more debate, the better.
Some of the mainstream media is now catching on to this story, especially now that we are seeing some official investigations.
Here are a few of the more interesting excerpts that I have read since yesterday.....(I think this is a good thing because now scientists that were previously afraid of having an honest debate are now much more free to give all the facts!!!)
From CBS News
Aynsley Kellow, a professor at the University of Tasmania who was an expert reviewer for a U.N. global warming report, told ABC Radio there was evidence of a "willingness to manipulate raw data to suit predetermined results, you've got a resistance to any notion of transparency, an active resistance to freedom of information requests or quite reasonable requests from scientists to have a look at data so that it can be verified." (Using UN and transparency in the same sentence shows either a lack of intelligence or a lack of integrity)
Hans von Storch, director of the Director of Institute for Coastal Research who was assailed by Mann in one e-mail message, calls the CRU axis a "cartel" and suggests that Jones and others avoid reviewing papers.
Thomas Crowley, professor of geosciences at the University of Edinburgh, told the Washington Post that the CRU-leaked-files episode "reflects badly on the people who are so desperate to discredit global warming." (discredit "global warming" or have a real debate?)
From the Penn State Daily Collegian.
People with legitimate scientific concerns should be able to express them, meteorology professor Jenni Evans said, but if they are neither skillful nor courageous enough to express them in the right forum, scientists are not going to take any notice. (If those arguments are buried by those with the money to do so and an agenda that demands it, they will also be buried)
"I think that people that have to stoop to deception and theft probably don't have strong ground to stand on," she said. (You are correct. It was the pro global warming people that conspired to hide the original data and then hide it so who really has the weaker leg to stand on?)
Evans said if scientists did listen to everything people tried to tell them to do, it would leave no opportunity for science to advance -- and no one would learn anything new.
From the Wall Street Journal.
What does all this have to do with climate catastrophe? The answer brings us to a scandal that is, in my opinion, considerably greater than that implied in the hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit (though perhaps not as bad as their destruction of raw data): (Without the raw data, there is no proof of a catastrophe as anyone can alter the data that goes into climate forecasting models so the only verifiable proof was the original data which those who support global warming disposed of. So if the truth was on their side would they have resorted to such actions?) namely the suggestion that the very existence of warming or of the greenhouse effect is tantamount to catastrophe. This is the grossest of "bait and switch" scams. It is only such a scam that lends importance to the machinations in the emails designed to nudge temperatures a few tenths of a degree. Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT.
"I think it is unfortunate that some scientists out there are using this situation to settle personal scores, to settle a vendetta," Prof. Michael Mann. (If there were scores to settle, wouldnt there be more direct methods of doing so?)