Climategate scandal continues to unfold
On the heels of the shocking news in the scientific community that scientists-gone-bad cooked the books and manipulated data to make a case for ‘global warming,’ new information has surfaced in the last 48 hours showing that the Climategate scandal only continues to unfold.
This information rocked the scientific community this week, although the American press never mentioned a word about it:
Scientist at the heart of the ‘Climategate’ email scandal broke the law when they refused to give raw data to the public, the privacy watchdog has ruled.
The Information Commissioner’s office said University of East Anglia researchers breached the Freedom of Information Act when handling requests from climate change sceptics.
But the scientists will escape prosecution because the offences took place more than six months ago.
Amid all the hoop-la concerning this continually-unfolding scandal is one central truth–if a scientist’s hypothesis can be verified by the hard data using the ‘scientific method,’ there is no need whatsoever for hiding information from the public and from other scientists, much less manipulating data to prove one’s point.
The very fact that these things were done serves to immediately and irrefutably nullify the notion that climate change is ‘man-made.’
But in this case the scientists involved broke the law. However, as the article cited above points out, they will not face prosecution due to a hoophole in that law. How convenient. Crimes of this magnitude should be prosecuted vigorously and the perpetrators, if found guilty, should do serious jail time.
This is not the only bombshell news involving Climategate, however.
The Times of the U.K. published explosive information just yesterday showing that before the U.N.’s Copenhagen summit on climate change in December, the organization’s climate chief Rajendra Pachauri was informed that the widely-distributed claim that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was false.
Pachauri, however, proceeded with business as usual during the summit and took a full 2 months to acknowledge the glaring error:
Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.
The IPCC’s report underpinned the proposals at Copenhagen for drastic cuts in global emissions.
Dr Pachauri, who played a leading role at the summit, corrected the error last week after coming under media pressure. He told The Times on January 22 that he had only known about the error for a few days. He said: “I became aware of this when it was reported in the media about ten days ago. Before that, it was really not made known. Nobody brought it to my attention. There were statements, but we never looked at this 2035 number.”
Asked whether he had deliberately kept silent about the error to avoid embarrassment at Copenhagen, he said: “That’s ridiculous. It never came to my attention before the Copenhagen summit. It wasn’t in the public sphere.”
In addition, a science journalist, Pallava Bagla, had asked Pachauri about the error last November, to which Pachauri replied, ‘I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.’
Perhaps someone should inform the good doctor that the issue is not whether or not he has anything to add. He has ‘added’ quite enough. The issue at hand is whether or not he will delete grossly erroneous information–false data that has cost governments billions.
The individuals who have engaged in this scandal of historic proportions–perpetrating a hoax on the entire world that has polluted minds and resulted in needless concern and panic–are criminals who should be tried in a court of law and sent to jail. The United Nations is quick to condemn individuals and nations who veer from its pie-in-the-sky prescriptions for humankind. Where is the outrage over Climategate? Why are there no calls for criminal investigations although these scientists broke the law?
The answer should be clear. As long as one lies on behalf of the ‘approved agenda’ no harm is done.
