Yeah, you better pray.
I blogged the ClimateGate scandal last week. It keeps going — and growing. There are calls on both sides of the pond for an investigation into data manipulation. A former British lord is demanding an independent inquiry:
This morning Lord Lawson, who has reinvented himself as a prominent climate change sceptic since leaving front line politics, demanded that the apparent deception be fully investigated.
He claimed that the credibility of the university’s world-renowned Climatic Research Unit – and British science – were under threat. “They should set up a public inquiry under someone who is totally respected and get to the truth,” he told the BBC Radio Four Today programme. “If there’s an explanation for what’s going on they can make that explanation.”
Around 1,000 emails and 3,000 documents were stolen from UEA computers by hackers last week and uploaded on to a Russian server before circulating on websites run by climate change sceptics. Some of the correspondence indicates that the manipulation of data was widespread among global warming researchers.
One of the emails under scrutiny, written by Phil Jones, the centre’s director, in 1999, reads: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” Prof Jones has insisted that he used the word “trick” to mean a “clever thing to do”, rather than to indicate deception. He has denied manipulating data.
Here in the U.S., GOP Sen. Jim Inhofe — a longtime watchdog over the global warming mob — has also called for a probe.
Michael Goldfarb shines light on the blabbermouth NYTimes’ newfound reluctance to discuss sensitive information.
And such selective blabbermouths they are.
Danny Glover has more on NYT climate change spinner Andrew Revkin.
Be sure to stay informed and take the ClimateGate pop quiz from Gavin Atkins.