Climate Change Advocates Found Lying : Again! Still!

The nightmare that is climate change marches forward with little or no evidence to support it. What 'proof' that has been distributed is tainted by gross negligence on the part of advocates.

With the release in 2009 and now this new batch of emails it is clear, there was no doubt even before 2009 that this was a scam, climate change can not be 'proved' one way or the other, yet hundreds of millions of tax dollars are still being spent to support a lie.

Green energy advocates use this false information to support their agenda that fossil fuel must be taken down or all is lost for the human race. The truth be dammed.

In reality, the worlds climate is way bigger than man's meager attempts to reduce it to just computer models. Of course this never stopped Al Gore and his ilk from their grab for more money and power.

Climategate 2.0 and Scientific Integrity
Source: H. Sterling Burnett, "What's Going on Behind the Curtain? Climategate 2.0 and Scientific Integrity," National Association of Scholars, December 14, 2011.

Climategate, both 1 and 2, are textbook cases of gross lapses in professional ethics and scientific malfeasance. To understand why, one must first understand what science is and how it is supposed to operate, says H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis.

Science is the noble pursuit of knowledge through observation, testing and experimentation.
Scientists attempt to explain, describe and/or predict the implications of phenomena through the use of the scientific method, which consists of gaining knowledge or explanatory power through a process.

Progress is made in science by proposing a hypothesis and developing a theory to explain or understand certain phenomena, and then testing the hypothesis against reality. A particular hypothesis is considered superior to others when, through testing, it is shown to have more explanatory power than competing theories or hypotheses.

Every theory or hypothesis must be disconfirmable in principle, which means that, if the theory predicts that "A" will occur under certain conditions, but instead, "B" and sometimes "C" result, then the theory has problems. The more a hypothesis' predictions prove inconsistent with or are diametrically opposed to the results that occur during testing, the less likely the hypothesis is to be correct.

Which brings us to Climategate.

Climategate parts one and two are a series of leaked e-mails from arguably the most prominent researchers promoting the idea that humans are causing catastrophic global warming. The first group of e-mails released in 2009 showed scientists, among other things, attempting to suppress or alter inconvenient data, destroying raw data so that others would be unable to analyze it and trying to suppress dissent by undermining the peer review process.

Climategate 2 is a second release of e-mails with little new information, but more hiding of data.
To be clear, these e-mails do not disprove that humans are causing potentially catastrophic global warming, but what clearly emerges is that the scientists claiming that "the science is settled" and that there is "consensus" among scientists, can't be trusted, nor can their research be pointed to as solid proof of anthropogenic global warming, says Burnett.