Interlock PrayerNet

SCIENTIFIC MYTHOLOGY by Larry Stout 12/1/09

It would have been easy to miss, given how the major media outlets would like this story buried, but last week a hacker published several dozen megabytes of information from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom.  To say this was a bombshell is an understatement. The CRU is THE clearing house for the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory (AGW) and the primary source for much of the UN and the US Congress’ political agenda on reducing carbon emissions.  From these emails and documents, we know three things; first, the data was consciously manipulated to support their conclusions, second, there was a concerted effort to subvert the peer-review process of journals that might publish anything contrary to the “accepted” AGW theory, and third, there was an organized attempt to circumvent or obstruct the legal requirements of the UK’s Freedom of Information Act of 2000. 

Forgive me for a little gloating here, but I wrote over two years ago on the myth of global warming (available in pdf form on request or the website below).  Actually, anyone with an iota of objectivity should have suspected that the books had been cooked.  A UC San Diego science historian by the name of Naomi Oreskes examined 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed articles from 1993 and 2003 and found, “Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position” in favor of man-made global warming.  928 to zero is remarkable?  How about – unbelievable!  In the real world of science, research is volatile, consisting of normal give and take.  Scientists test each other’s theories, using each other’s empirical data and seeking to replicate it in another domain or see how it might be applied to another phenomenon.  I cannot think of any other field of science where 928 serious researchers writing scientific papers on a given subject would all be marching lockstep in the “consensus position.” 

This type of “consensus” reminds of the Soviet Union. Trofim Lysenko proposed a theory stating that acquired characteristics can be inherited.  Not coincidentally, this theory corresponded perfectly with Marxism.  From the 1920s to the 1960s, the life sciences were absolutely ruled by Lysenko’s thought, even though his experiments were never replicated.  Those serious scientists who were brave enough to question Lysenko were quickly denounced as “fly-lovers and people haters” and “wreckers” of biology who were secretly attempting to destroy the Soviet Union. Eventually, however, even the USSR could not stand against the tide of reality – after several generations it was obviously a fraudulent theory – and it finally renounced the Lysenkoism in 1964. 

Western societies have had their share of scientific scandals, to be sure.  The Piltdown Man fraud was considered a missing link in human evolution for over fifty years, with over 500 doctorate thesis’ were written on it.  Alfred Kinsey’s tortuously doctored “sex research” has been thoroughly reputed, yet is still widely quoted today.  The same is true with some famous female scientists who were better writers than researchers.  Margaret Mead simply invented research to fit her idea of what the science of anthropology sought to be in order to justify her own immature and immoral behavior. Rachel Carson wrote so eloquently that she almost single-handedly got DDT banned, despite the fact that she used unscientific methods and invented her findings.