From the Examiner.com:
"First, prominent climate scientists, including a lead author of IPCC
report sections, were willing to discuss withholding or deleting
information to frustrate legitimate requests made under the Freedom of
Information Act in the UK. They apparently chose who could not receive
information based on the requester's identity, which may have been
unlawful. They threatened to delete data -- data which in fact has
since disappeared. They advised each other to delete emails.
"Second, these same scientists worked closely together to control
channels of communication regarding climate science and global warming.
They banded together to minimise or eliminate skeptical discussion.
While telling the world that only peer-reviewed science should be
considered legitimate, they fiercely fought to prevent skeptic writings
from being peer-reviewed at all. They wrote openly about replacing an
uncooperative journal editor (who was later replaced), and boycotting
journals that published skeptical papers. They organised peer review so
that they reviewed each others' papers.
"Third, they were willing to change data so that their presentations of
the state of climate looked worse. At the end of the day, this is most
damning-most of the rest, even apparently illegal FOI actions, is just
politics and a playground media strategy. But while world governments
were imposing taxes, changing energy policies, preparing energy-based
conflict policies, planning to deal with warming-based immigration,
these people were content to display figures that were wrongly
exaggerated to show the warming they had previously predicted but could
not find in actual measurements."
Paul Shaw
Warren
{loadnavigation}
