Would you like climate scientists to focus on science instead of politics?

December 4th, 2009 12:06 pm  |  by  |  Published in Big Government, congress, Environment, Liberty, Politics  |  2 Responses

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h


Hackers have exposed emails from the CRU (Climatic Research Unit) at the University of East Anglia. These emails reveal shocking things. And what we’re learning should cause us to pause, instead of rushing through the cap and trade bill.

Please send Congress another letter opposing cap and trade.

You can copy or borrow from my letter to Congress to write your own . . .  

Revelations of anti-scientific behavior at the CRU (Climatic Research Unit) undermines the justification for cap and trade.

The case for human-caused global warming depends on claims made by the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), which in turn depend on so-called research by the CRU. But please take note . . .

Emails hacked from the CRU reveal that key advocates of the global warming hypothesis may have knowingly corrupted the scientific process. For example…

CRU researchers may have manipulated temperature histories in order to get the results they wanted. They have systematically refused to expose either their data or their manipulations to testing by the wider scientific community. This kind of testing is a crucial component of the scientific process.

Real scientists wouldn’t behave this way.

CRU researchers have also demonstrated a keen desire to silence critics, as well to devise tactics to rebuff and resist Freedom of Information requests. The scientific process requires peer critiques.

Real scientists wouldn’t behave this way.

The hypothesis that rising atmospheric CO2 should lead to global warming seems plausible. But it’s not an open and shut case, and the scientific process is famous for refuting seemingly plausible ideas. Now the practices of the CRU have set back the global warming hypothesis many years – perhaps to its starting point. The C02 hypothesis needs further, OPEN testing. It can’t be taken for granted because it sounds reasonable, nor because it came from people with titles and degrees.

Your responsibility in this matter seems clear . . .

You must reject the cap and trade bill, and craft no further policy until you have better evidence from which to work.

I will be watching to see if you behave responsibly, and I will be discussing your re-election with fellow voters in light of how you handle to this issue.

END OF SAMPLE LETTER

You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org’s Educate the Powerful System

And spread this message to your friends: http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/global-warming-and-climate-change-would-you-like-climate-scientists-to-do-science-instead-of-politics

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation

Responses

  1. NO_O_n12 says:

    December 5th, 2009 at 9:16 am (#)

    Defenders of catastrophic AGW claim that the e-mails do not invalidate their science.If it were only the released e-mails that cast doubt on the findings at the CRU in particular na dAHW in general CRU's position might be defensible. However, the other documents collectively and in conjunction with the e-mails are very incriminating. Especially considering that many of the criticisms of the whole AGW "science" that have been voiced for the past several years have been addressed and confirmed by the released files.

    I may be a 'flat earther' for having very serious doubts regarding AGW. However, I prefer the odds of falling off the edge of my flat earth to the prospects of a global government controlling every aspect of my life.

  2. NO_O_n12 says:

    December 5th, 2009 at 9:16 am (#)

    Defenders of catastrophic AGW claim that the e-mails do not invalidate their science.If it were only the released e-mails that cast doubt on the findings at the CRU in particular na dAHW in general CRU's position might be defensible. However, the other documents collectively and in conjunction with the e-mails are very incriminating. Especially considering that many of the criticisms of the whole AGW "science" that have been voiced for the past several years have been addressed and confirmed by the released files.

    I may be a 'flat earther' for having very serious doubts regarding AGW. However, I prefer the odds of falling off the edge of my flat earth to the prospects of a global government controlling every aspect of my life.

Leave a Response

You must be logged in to post a comment.