Global-Warming Fraud Harms Science; Fellow Academics Shocked by Climategate
Byline: THE WASHINGTON TIMES
One of the defenses offered by the media and those caught in Climategate has been that no matter how obvious the e-mails seem, there is a complicated context that means only academics can fully grasp what the e-mails meant. For example, CNN quibbled that, there's very little context in the leaked e-mails. We checked into what academics outside the cabal of global-warming advocates have been saying, and their view of the cover-up ranges anywhere from it being disappointing to highly disturbing. Some professional researchers are shocked, while others are not.
About the mildest comment we could find is by Robin Hansen, professor at George Mason's economics department. On his blog, Mr. Hansen wrote that while he wasn't particularly surprised by the e-mails discovered in Climategate, It is a shame that academia works this way. Physicist David Wright, who has held positions at top universities such as Harvard and is now a senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, is more outraged, commenting on a blog: In my discipline, there were plenty of camps that had strong opinions about whether certain ideas were right or wrong, likely to move the field forward or likely to prove useless distractions. Sometimes discussions became quite heated. But never did I see groups of people plotting to hijack the peer review process in order to shut out those who disagreed with them, or discussing how to hide data that did not look good for their side of the debate.
The British media and Fox News have done the most thorough job interviewing academics for their reaction to the e-mails and other documents showing widespread conversation about destroying data and evidence that undermine claims of global warming. On the issue of not sharing the raw data used to create aggregate temperature measures, The [Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia] is basically saying, 'Trust us. …