Global Warming science must be re-evaluated in wake of Climategate

Initially pretending not to notice that a major scandal has broken, undermining the veracity of all who foretell climate induced doom for the planet, the warmists are gravitating to a uniform damage-control spin. The common response from most PR- hacks now is that yes the emails look bad, (after all they are only human), but the underlying science of global warming is still valid.

Scholars who do research in any discipline, such as history or even journalism, know that exploring primary sources to check a premise is the only way to validate an assumption. We value these key sources so much that we build large repositories to house them; i.e. libraries and museums. The thought behind this is that concepts and theories can be evaluated, validated or debunked by anyone willing to do the research. The destruction of primary data or sources is a crime against science and the pursuit of knowledge.

The Climategate emails have revealed that climate alarmist scientists at the CRU and elsewhere have systematically restricted access to their primary data, manipulated that data when it suited them and ultimately destroyed the crucial field data all assumptions follow from. By any measure this is unforgivable. The situation becomes much graver when the economic stability of the world could be impacted by assumptions that are based on the data of two climate research agencies that collaborate closely with each other.

In a tale that is reminiscent of the Nixon Watergate cover-up, Phil Jones has become the Rose Mary Woods of the CRU – endeavouring to protect his alarmist elite by erasing the evidence.

No, the underlying science of global warming is not “still” valid and with what we know now never was. There were too few sources of raw data. The primary data could not be checked and evaluated by any interested party. The vested interests aggressively denounced and libelled any decent. We cannot trust any conclusions that emanate from this type of resource.

Simply put – the science will have to be done over again – this time with open access to all data and models that will be used to impact public policy.