We are still reeling from ‘Climategate’ and now ‘Himalayangate’. What is now being dubbed as “climate gate”, where a hacker has breached the computers at Hadley CRU, Britain’s largest climate research institute and a proponent of global warming, discovering e-mails that reveal evidence of serious and widespread fraud. The director of Britain’s leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition…”It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails.”… ((http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked, accessed 12-22-09)) which by any estimation has undermined the peer review process and evidences collusion at the highest levels.
This “disclosure of thousands of emails, computer programs, and other documents from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in the UK — revealed scandalous scientific misconduct of monumental proportions by the world’s leading paleoclimatologists, particularly the dendrochronologists — enough that it has crippled the credibility of the entire field of science and seriously tarnished the reputations of its inner cadre of researchers.” ((Global warming alarmism falling apart in light of ‘Climategate’ and IPCC errors By E. Calvin Beisner, BaptistPress News Jan 22, 2010, http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=32123 accessed 1/23/10))
Now what is being dubbed ‘Himalayangate’ or ‘Glaciergate’, referring to the warning issued two years ago by “the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)… [which] issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.” ((http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1 accessed 2/1/10))
Now, this flagitious claim has to be withdrawn because, as the Times article tells us, it “was not supported by any formal research” peer reviewed data, but rather upon: a “news story”, “speculation”, a “phone call” – nefarious redactional liberties.
Once again ((see other articles on Global Warming on my blog)), prudence and skepticism seem to be the order of the day for those who dislike becoming political pawns in the Al Gore sequel; if they believed it once, they will again!
