National Forest Legal News Blog

Blog

New Emails Reveal Fraud of Climate Science

Posted by nationalforestlawblog on November 25, 2011 at 9:55 AM

Forbes reports on a release of a new batch of emails where prominent climate scientists reveal that they actively deleted protected emails in an attempt to avoid releasing evidence that the data does not support alleged man-made warming. According to the Forbes report:


Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.


You can read the full article here.

Categories: None

Post a Comment

Oops!

Oops, you forgot something.

Oops!

The words you entered did not match the given text. Please try again.

Already a member? Sign In

2 Comments

Reply John Persell
06:26 PM on January 24, 2012 
It's too bad this is such a political issue. It makes everyone skeptical of information pointing toward either perspective. Non-scientists are caught in a dilemma of whether to trust or not trust what various scientists say. It's not clear from most articles I've read whether the scientists whose emails were released are the only scientists that matter whose work suggests anthropogenic climate change is occurring. Aren't there a great many climate scientists? Haven't many sets of data been collected by various individuals or organizations? Haven't there been blind studies done to see if the data shows a connection between greenhouse gases and global temperature?

Regardless, climate has changed in the past. Is it a bad thing for the government, industry, and individuals to consider how we might deal with a changing climate? We're not going to stop emitting greenhouse gases overnight, but I don't see why preparing adaptation or even mitigation plans is inherently bad. Most entities try to make educated guesses about the future and plan accordingly. Isn't that a good business tactic?
Reply Billbe
12:12 AM on January 28, 2012 
John Persell says...
It's too bad this is such a political issue. It makes everyone skeptical of information pointing toward either perspective. Non-scientists are caught in a dilemma of whether to trust or not trust what various scientists say. It's not clear from most articles I've read whether the scientists whose emails were released are the only scientists that matter whose work suggests anthropogenic climate change is occurring. Aren't there a great many climate scientists? Haven't many sets of data been collected by various individuals or organizations? Haven't there been blind studies done to see if the data shows a connection between greenhouse gases and global temperature?

Regardless, climate has changed in the past. Is it a bad thing for the government, industry, and individuals to consider how we might deal with a changing climate? We're not going to stop emitting greenhouse gases overnight, but I don't see why preparing adaptation or even mitigation plans is inherently bad. Most entities try to make educated guesses about the future and plan accordingly. Isn't that a good business tactic?


It's too bad that we can't trust some scientist and our government. Since the progressive liberal ideas have taken over most of both groups it is inparative that they be shown as the liers they are!