The “Climategate” whistleblower at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) now faces a police investigation at the instigation of the University authorities.Â His crime?Â He revealed what many had long suspected, says the former science advisor to Lady Margaret Thatcher, Lord Christopher Monckton.
A tiny clique of politicized scientists, paid by unscientific politicians with whom they were financially and politically linked, were responsible for gathering and reporting data on temperatures from the palaeoclimate to today’s climate.Â The “Team,” as they called themselves, bent and distorted scientific data to fit a nakedly political story-line profitable to themselves and congenial to the governments that, these days, pay the bills for 99 percent of all scientific research, says Monckton.
What the hacked emails revealed:
- The CRU at East Anglia had profited to the tune of at least $20 million in “research” grants from the Team’s activities.
- The Team had tampered with the complex, bureaucratic processes of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), so as to exclude inconvenient scientific results from its four Assessment Reports, and to influence the panel’s conclusions for political rather than scientific reasons.
- The Team had conspired in an attempt to redefine what is and is not peer-reviewed science for the sake of excluding results that did not fit what they and the politicians with whom they were closely linked wanted the U.N. climate panel to report.
- They had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.
- They had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures in the paleoclimate.
- They had expressed dismay at the fact that, contrary to all of their predictions, global temperatures had not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years, and had been falling for nine years.
- They had mounted a venomous public campaign of disinformation and denigration of their scientific opponents via a website that they had expensively created.
- Contrary to all the rules of open, verifiable science, the Team had committed the criminal offense of conspiracy to conceal and then to destroy computer codes and data that had been legitimately requested by an external researcher who had very good reason to doubt that their “research” was either honest or competent.