While I don’t condone hacking, having been a victim of it once, I have to admit sometimes it brings things that should be known to light and if nothing else can be used to hold people accountable. But then this is what the old school hackers are all about: searching for information others don’t want seen.
At first, said Dr. Michaels, the climatologist who has faulted some of the science of the global warming consensus, his instinct was to ignore the correspondence as “just the way scientists talk.”
But on Friday, he said that after reading more deeply, he felt that some exchanges reflected an effort to block the release of data for independent review.
And this is part of the reason why I bo longer believe research done at institutes devoted to Climate Change. It’s too easy for the scientists to become so entwined and dependent on their research that they start to allow their personal interest (be it monetary, fame, career, etc) to drive results and conclusions rather than the facts and data in evidence. Another is the oh-so convenient financial enrichment of those pushing so called climate agendas at the expense of and, in some cases, detriment of ordinary people around the planet seeking to improve their economic, agricultural, social and industrial development.
The third reason I don’t really buy into man being the sole cause of global warming is given previous “scientific proclamations”: global cooling, adding to the ozone layer, destroying the ozone, holes in the ozone layer, which were used to push agendas and later discovered to be overstated by those seeking to profit off the alleged research.
And the final reason I don’t believe the climate researchers is the suppression of dissenting scientific conjecture and opinion, even when faced with data that does not conform to currently accepted conclusions. The fact that scientists rely on collectivist group think is in and of itself a hindrance to independent, objective scientific thought. A true objective scientist does not suppress or warp information, data, and facts to a certain conclusion. They allow the conclusion to flow naturally without subjective interference driven by ideology, politics, money, or other forms of self gratification.
I suspect we may never know the full truth about climate change nor admit how little is truly known about the planet’s climate life cycle given the scientific process itself has been corrupted by those who have a vested interest in coming to a preselected outcome. I, for one would, be interested in knowing all the facts, not one scientific faction’s opinion, before any action, if needed, be taken. What I’ve seen so far does not convince me.
If nothing else this incident highlights the need for complete and total transparency not only in data and methodology but any externally related items that may effect such work: sources of funding, political oversight committees, political affiliations, etc.
As an aside, it’s interesting to see the hardliners on both sides of the issue savaging each other, often resorting to unrelated issues and tactics that only further serve to alienate rather than pursuade individuals to their side.