Where is the outrage? Or, at least, where's the coverage?

A recent event is the posting of confidential e-mails and data to a Russian web server.  The e-mails and data, lifted from the University of East Anglia's servers, paints a disturbing portrait:  Over the past decade, some scientists have compromised on their ethics and politicized the science.  You know, the same thing the Bush administration was criticized for during the past eight years.  Details of the potential scandal are still forthcoming, such as willful gaming of the data, suppression of data that does not support the climate change alarmism that was the foundation for the Kyoto treaty and could be the foundation for the upcoming Copenhagen conference, and the essential "black-balling" of scientists with a contrarian view.  The story reeks of the intrigue one would expect from those seeking political office.  But scientists??  If even a fraction of the e-mails have been correctly interpreted, it casts a stain on the entire field of climate research.  I'm inclined to believe there has been a breach of scientific ethics.  I recall about a year or two ago, a fellow had a website where he had analyzed the thousand-plus global surface temperature monitoring stations, and found an overwhelming majority to be compromised by the stations' placement by non-solar heat sources.

A good scientist comes up with a hypothesis, experiments and collects data, and draws a conclusion based on the data.  Inevitably, the data contains outliers, and the veracity of the conclusion depends on how well the scientist is able to explain and justify their existence.  With the stations located near non-solar heat sources, such as air conditioner exhaust fans, asphalt, busy roads, etc., the scientist must account for the influence those sources have on the recording of surface temperatures.  Of course, a better approach is not having to account for them all, but to ensure the strict conditions under which the surface temperature monitoring stations were originally set up are adhered to.  A great scientist minimizes or eliminates those external influences that compromise his/her data.

That hasn't happened.  Instead, some scientists have abandoned a search for truth:  They draw their conclusions first, and work backwards, collecting the data which supports that conclusion.  They dismiss the theories of those with contrary views, often making accusations that their opponents are motivated by financial gain from people or industries standing to gain or lose based on certain scientific "truths".  Never is the accuser's motivations questioned, such as the obtaining of politically-motivated government grants.


The university has confirmed the validity of the e-mails and data.  So now, we have evidence of people, whom are supposed to be conducting an unbiased search for the truth, are letting their bias influence the data.  The data doesn't fit the conclusion?  Toss it out.  Someone has data that doesn't support your hypothesis?  Belittle them, accuse them of being in someone's pocket.  Do everything except integrating their data into your conclusions.  People, if, as we've been told, the U.S. Constitution is a "living document" that changes with the times, why can't the conclusions be just as flexible.  It would seem, in light of the revelations from this data and these e-mails, the science is far from settled.

UPDATE:  Listening to Sean Hannity argue with a woman claiming to be a geologist who "has studied this for years."  I'm still not clear on why a geologist would be studying the climate.  Hannity tries to argue the facts, including some of those listed below:

• The current year is shaping up to be the coldest on record
• 1998 was the warmest year on record since modern record-keeping began
• Evidence exists to suggest the Medieval Warming Period experienced warmer temperatures than now

This scientist's response?  Trying to talk over Hannity, quizzing him on when was the last time ships could traverse the Artic Ocean.

She's correct:  In human memory, the Artic Ocean has never been open to standard ocean-going vessels.  In human memory.  Well, let's see.  How old is the planet?  The geologist can probably answer that question:  around 4 billions years old.  How long have humans been on the planet?  For simplicity's sake, let's just examine the history of homo sapiens.  According to Wikipedia, they've been around for about 200,000 years, about five hundred-thousandths.  To put it in perspective, if the earth was only a year old, homo sapiens would have been around for the past 26 minutes.

But let's look deeper:  Sailing vessels date back to about 7000 years ago. Again, if the planet was only a year old, sailing vessels were invented 55 seconds ago.  But discovery of the Artic Ocean dates back only to 325 BC (or, 18 seconds ago), and serious exploration limited to the 19th century.  It was first navigated in 1896 (890 milliseconds ago), and has only been monitored since1937 (567 milliseconds ago).

The phrase "in human memory" doesn't seem so significant now, does it?

Something else that bugs me about the alarmists is their insistence on believing closed-system models in predicting the coming changes in the open-system known as Earth's troposphere.

OK, the ice is currently melting in the Artic circle.  A question:  Are the ice floes that are melting composed of freshwater or seawater?  Because it makes a difference.  As the salinity of the water rises and falls, it has an effect on ocean currents, and by extension, global surface temperatures.  It also has an impact on the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide.  Again, how can anyone say the science is settled?