A distinguished scientist, a specialist in the study of climactic change on our earth made a plain and simple statement.
"global warming isn't about belief"
In my dealings with the lay public I've always found a very large gulf between what is known in the science and what is thought on the sidewalk. Global warming is no different.
The hack attack at the CRU of UEA has pried open the door for everyone who has a differential opinion about the matter, bursting forth with criticism, sarcasm, wit and doubt.
NPR has decided that Jim Hansen can't get his papers published.
The New York Times has examined columnist Andrew Rivken's association with the CRU as his name appears in the lifted emails.
Rivken himself has decided to once again try to present 'balance' where little exists. While over in the denier/delayer camp, the coffee pot is hot and the keyboards are on fire.
On Reason.com, David Harsanyi has made at least three startling claims, two of which I think can shed light on.
Phil Jones, head of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in Britain, has stepped down from his position. Michael Mann, architect of the famous "hockey stick" graph, is now under investigation by Pennsylvania State University. Similar inquiries should follow.
1) Phil Jones has in fact stepped down as the UEA does an internal investigation into the stolen emails. As a part of this investigation the emails themselves and their content will be examined and certainly questions about methodology raised. But given that the data set from UEA shows a trend that is confirmed independently I very much expect to see Jones back in the left hand seat by the beginning of the year.
2) likewise the University of Pennsylvania is doing a similar investigation of the emails sent and received by Michael Mann. Mann's work has already been validated independently (twice) but to quote Mann, he'd be a bit disappointed if the University didn't look into the matter.
Now number three has me a bit stumped !
Take NASA, which—despite a 2-year-old Freedom of Information Act request asking for research detailing its historical data—continues to ignore taxpayers.
Are these state secrets?
Using my favorite library tool I googled "NASA FOIA Historical Climate Data"
Google reveals all ...
Chris Horner, a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), is trying to take a look at NASA's, probably, cooked climate change data. NASA has been in the middle of the fraud, and even furthered it, it appears. Horner and CEI has given NASA until the end of this year to comply with his FOIA request before suing.
Horner is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism and Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and Deception to Keep you Misinformed. He has tried for two years, through the Freedom of Information Act, to see NASA's data, which he suspects is fraudulent. Horner believes NASA:
In the blog article about Horner's FOIA request Horner is quoted as saying
...has shaped its climate data and [that] would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930's.
I assume that what is there is highly damaging," Mr. Horner said. "These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this.
Well, this is dramatic, isn't it? I did a little digging into Horner over at RealClimate. Finding nothing I resorted to the Wiki and hit pay dirt. Chris Horner is a lawyer and works for none other than CEI, the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Horner has had some pretty interesting things to say about NASA and James Hansen.
Horner has accused NASA's chief climate scientist, James Hansen, of "doctor[ing] temperature data on two occasions in 2001 and once in 2007 in attempts to show an impending climate catastrophe." Horner told Fox News that Hansen has "clearly abused his platform provided to him by the taxpayer, principally by the way he's been exposed of manipulating and revising data with the strange coincidence of him always found on the side of exaggerating the warming."
I don't know if it was in the same breath or not but he followed up with this piece of space age wisdom.
"[The planet Pluto, which is warming up despite moving away from the sun], is a reminder that no matter where you are climate happens... There will be inevitably and likely imminent claims [by environmentalists] that mankind is also causing Plutonian global warming."
I find this statement most telling for one small detail (also from the Wiki)
As Pluto moves away from the Sun, its atmosphere gradually freezes and falls to the ground.
Did I mention he was a lawyer?