The Scientific Hoax

December 21, 2009

It has long been thought that academic research like that done at the University of East Anglia (UEA) Climate Research Unit (CRU) is pure and holy while corporate research is somehow corrupt and evil. Both have an agenda. In the corporate world, the objective is to bring a product to market. In the academic world, the objective is to secure the next big grant. I may be biased, but I think the corporate world is at least more honest in that one knows the objective is to make money. Academic researchers cloak themselves in the search for truth when in reality their truth has pictures of dead presidents on it.

Many of those providing grants to academic researchers consider it an investment. They have an agenda to push, an idea to sell and the grant providers want their money's worth. The researchers who accept these grants know this. They want to make their grant providers happy. Considering that the Detroit News reported that Professor Phil Jones of the UEA-CRU collected some $22.6 million in grants, he would want to keep his benefactors very happy.

Even though most of the media have ignored it, most of us know the story. A hacker has broken into the UEA-CRU in Great Britain and uncovered thousands of emails exposing the evidence of anthropogenic global warming as an absolute hoax. The so called "scientists" who promote it have used tricks to make their data fit their agenda, hid data that did not support their cause, attempted to discredit skeptics and deleted damaging documents they feared might become public under the Freedom of Information Act.

The so-called scientists at the UEA-CRU claim to have thrown away the original data allegedly showing a slow rise in global temperatures over the last 157 years. All they have now is the "adjusted" (i.e. doctored) data.

When requested to release the original data in 2004, Professor Phil Jones said, "Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?" What more proof do you need that Professor Jones is no scientist? A scientist would want others to inspect his data and even draw other conclusions from it, but Professor Jones has another agenda.

Al Gore has been out there for years explaining how we are setting the earth on fire with carbon dioxide in his movie An Inconvenient Truth. However, we now know that the data used in his famous "hockey stick" graph was all fraudulent. We found out last year that all that shocking footage of polar ice melting was actually computer-generated graphics for the 2004 sci-fi thriller The Day After Tomorrow (great movie, bad science). Maybe now he'll change the name of the movie to A Convenient Lie.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been running all over the world scaring the pants off everybody telling them that the earth is heating so much that the Himalayan glaciers may disappear by the year 2035, only 25 years from now. Well, not exactly; it seems there was a "typo" (so they claim). The actual predicted date is the year 2350. Oh, that's not bad; they were only off by 315 years. Don't you find it funny that they can't accurately predict the weather for this weekend, but they are absolutely positive about the weather hundreds of years from now?

I concluded the whole man-made global warming theory was most likely a political agenda when those pushing the idea started using the term "scientific consensus." There is no such thing as a scientific consensus. There are scientific theories and there are scientific facts. If a theory is unproven, then it remains only a theory, no matter how many scientists say they agree with it. However, given what we have learned, man-made global warming is not even a scientific theory; it is the world's first "scientific hoax."

That's all this is; that's all it ever was. Those who push this agenda want to use it to destroy this nation; destroy our way of life. They are well on their way. They have nearly destroyed our auto industry with their idiotic CAFÉ standards. Once Congress is through taking over our health care industry, they are going to take up the "Cap and Trade" bill to allegedly reduce greenhouse gasses. The EPA now has the power to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. We now know that all of it is based on a lie.

As a chemist, I have great respect for the scientific disciplines and great disdain for hucksters who attempt to use science as a cover for a political agenda. All of us in the scientific community need to take a stand against the charlatans at the UEA-CRU before their stain imbues all of science.

Comments: 0
  1. Email address is REQUIRED, in case we need to contact you about your comment. However, we will not display or use your email address for any purpose other than to contact you about this comment.
  2. Nickname should be a short nickname that you choose to use. Please do NOT enter your full, real name. Nickname will be displayed along with your comment.
  3. Comments will not appear on our website until they have been reviewed by our Editorial Team. Inappropriate messages will be rejected by the Editorial Team. Free speech is important here at ConservativeTruth, however, the Editorial Team reserves the absolute right to determine what content appears on this website.
    • Comments that contain foul language, profanity or vulgarity will be rejected.
    • Comments that contain links will be rejected. (send email to the editor if you wish to let us know about another website)
    • Comments that advertise a product or service will be rejected.
    • Comments that contain email addresses will be rejected.
2500 characters max
Copyright ©2009 Humphrey Stevenson

Humphrey Stevenson has BS degrees in Chemistry and Mathematics and an MBA and makes his home in Tulsa, OK. He is a chemist by trade, has been published in trade journals, and is a recent "tea party" participant and political writer. His inspiration, as with many conservatives, is Ronald Reagan.