As I mentioned before I had believed the ‘sciences’ were the epitome of trustworthiness, which Wiki considers is a moral value considered to be a virtue – perhaps it just makes me sound gullible!
I have read all that comes my way about the THEORY of AGW – man made global warming, and it never ‘persuaded’ me to jump on the Al Gore Bandwagon. Time and time again I read of ‘credible lettered’ scientists who were trying to get their side of the discussion out in the open. Not all scientists believe in the AGW theory as we have been led to believe. I learned recently that there were comments in those CRU (Climate Research Unit) emails, discussing how to silence AGW sceptics.
Surely this is an isolated thing I told myself. The people at CRU, respected world renowned scientist’s would not lower themselves to intimidate Journals and Editors and even other scientists who did not agree with them — I must be reading this wrong. But there it was in print for all to read.
Again I asked myself is this an isolated incident of facts and figures being changed, manipulated, fudged to suit the ‘required end product’? Were the comments found in the emails taken out of context?
Then I found this ‘gem’ amongst other conversations discussing Climategate and the codes used in the ‘hacked’ files from CRU :
Iworked as a research assistant at Columbia University, the only thing that surprises me is the childish language and the tone of all the emails. Scholarship is corrupt to the core and that’s why I decided never to get a PHD.
The number one corruption is that no thesis is approved for research unless the research passes a political litmus test. Translation: Unless you already have a conclusion in mind that does not seriously detract from that of your colleagues, you have no hope of being published.
Now, I am published (only one paper), but it is in the field of Philosophical History, it did not require any grant money, and it passed the political litmus test among Orientalists detracting from those whose background ais Occidental. Translation: the paper is perceived as “progressive” so it is good to go.
Of course it’s a bad idea to base policy upon modern scholarship in highly controversial areas. Unless proposed research is designed to meet, substantiate, or reflect progressive ideals, you haven’t got a chance.
Mainstream scholarship in recent history has got some very obvious things dead wrong because of progressive politics. Just as we heard all the lies about imminent O-Zone disaster to racial integration increasing property value (believe what you will about the social merit of integration, the economic is quite obvious), they are wrong again about yet another one.
However, their arrogance is astonishing in the email and programming notes. It should be no surprise they fudge evidence and conclusions–that’s 95% of scholarship, where position is more important than the truth. The surprise is that they all seem to be knowingly complicit in deception and not care. Everyone whom I worked with believed their crap!
Oh my goodness the plot thickens………..
A day or so later I received another email from a ‘fellow seeker of information’ revealing an article that had recently appeared in the BMJ (British Medical Journal) about the many problems associated with drug companies doing most of the research on their own products.”
Then another incident was exposed via an email mailing list, for all and sundry to read:
A Canadian Independent Researcher Chris Gupta today circulated an email containing a letter, signed by ‘concerned scientists’ regarding Academic Freedom.
The letter had already been sent to: Honourable Colin Barnett MEc MLAPremier Government of Western Australia Cc:The Hon Kevin Rudd MPPrime Minister Parliament House Hon Terry Redman MLAMinister, Dept of Agriculture and FoodGovernment of Western Australia Professor Mike DaubePresident, Public Health Association of Australia Dr. Phllip W. Kuchel Australian Academic of Science.
This is what it said:
Dear Mr. Barnett, In 2005, the Government of Western Australia awarded a research grant worth $92,000 to researchers at the Institute of Health and Environmental Research, now based in Adelaide, Southern Australia . In announcing it, the then Agriculture Minister, Kim Chance, said that “the WA Government will fund an independent long-term animal feeding trial to gain data on the safety or otherwise of GM food crops”. Far from welcoming the study, the biotech industry sought to block it, initially by writing to the WA government in an effort to get the government to reverse its funding decision, then by either refusing to supply GM crops to the research team or placing such onerous conditions upon the supply of the GM crops that the researchers could not sign up to the conditions . In addition, the lead scientist has been subjected to a sustained campaign of vilification and harassment by commercial interests connected with the biotech industry.The present Minister of Agriculture, Terry Redman, is now interfering in the research by demanding details about the location of the study laboratories, its research protocols and its progress to date. It is hard to see any legitimate reason for this interference. Information about the procedures was available when the grant was proposed, and it is most unusual for a government or indeed anyone else to demand to see the results of work that is not yet completed. The Minister?s hostility to the line of research is well known from when he was in opposition; he is wrong to use his current position to obstruct science which was commissioned before he took office.It is wrong, though perhaps not surprising, that the biotechnology industry should be seeking to obstruct research into the safety of what they produce , and promoting the vilification and harassment of any scientist conducting such research . It is indefensible for a government to do the same. We call on the Government of Western Australia to stop this unprecedented interference with the research it has commissioned and to ensure that the project will proceed unhindered. We also call on the Government of Australia to require biotechnology companies to make available to independent researchers the material they need for their work. The citizens of Australia, like those of other countries, will not be well served unless academic freedom is guaranteed for scientists to work independently of biotechnology companies or the whims of governments . It is not possible to take proper decisions on GMOs if the only evidence on which to base those decisions comes from scientists who work for or are chosen by the biotechnology industry. (More information available from Chris)
I guess there are some serious questions that need to be asked.
Does it seem possible? even likely that pressure is put to bear on scientists, who were once the epitome of ‘Just The Facts’, so you could believe what they told you, to fudge data to suit the ‘required end product’? “If you don’t do what we want, there will be no more funding.”
Is it really a case of follow the almighty dollar? Sure seems that way doesn’t it? Are the scientists just pawns in the game of One World Governance and control?
Who can you rely on to perfom an honest evaluation of the leaked emails and the doubts they cast on the Man Made Global Warming theory?
I must admit I am seriously saddened by what is being revealed, and I truly believe (pun intended) that this is only the tip of the iceberg. A Dear friend once told me ‘trust no one – eveyone has their price’, sad to say I am finally beginning to understand why.