More climategate fraud
Posted by Richard on December 3, 2009
A quick update from Instapundit (for the benefit of my legions of readers who aren't familiar with that obscure Tennessee blogger):
OOPS: Former NASA climate scientist pleads guilty to contract fraud. “A former top climate scientist who had become one of the scientific world’s most cited authorities on the human effect on Earth’s atmosphere was sentenced to probation Tuesday after pleading guilty to steering lucrative no-bid contracts to his wife’s company.”
Related, from the ClimateGate emails: “We need to show some left to cover the costs of the trip Roger didn’t make and also the fees/equipment/computer money we haven’t spent otherwise NOAA will be suspicious.”
'Nuff said. These "scientists" promoting AGW are both charlatans and crooks. They're not just fraudulently promoting their ideological agenda, they're also enriching themselves in the process.
But by all means, check out Instapundit's links. Especially the second one's quoted notes from Ian "Harry" Harris. And check out the the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file, apparently from the same person. And those of you familiar with the FORTRAN and/or IDL programming languages might be interested in this post and its links (thanks, David B.).
Given that, according to Shakespeare, "the better part of valor is discretion," maybe the world's leaders should just cancel the Copenhagen climate summit. After all, its entire agenda is premised on now-discredited conclusions created by sloppy and unscientific computer models using raw data that was deliberately massaged to hide the truth and then destroyed.
And maybe someone should tell John Travolta, Sheryl Crow, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Oprah Winfrey, Trudie Styler (wife of Sting), and other strident advocates of making the rest of us lower our carbon emissions, not to fly their private jets to Copenhagen.
David Bryant said
Wive of Sting? What’s a wive, anyway? ;^>
I’m no fan of the global warming crowd, but there is a small kernel of truth in their rantings. This op-ed by Richard S. Lindzen appeared in the Wall Street Journal a few days ago. People who want to separate the hard science from the hype definitely ought to peruse the editorial.
Lindzen, who is a professor in the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate at MIT (the second best technical school in America), has also written a fascinating assessment of what’s really going wrong with the nation’s biggest scientific institutions. He also skewers a long list of prominent actors in the great climate debate. You can find the paper at arxiv.org.
If you really want to understand how the proponents of anthropogenic global warming exaggerated their case, you should read his paper.
rgcombs said
”What’s a wive, anyway? ;^>”
Closely related to a wife. Appears when typing fast late at night after an adult beverage or three. Fixed now, thanks. 🙂
The Lindzen op-ed is a good one. The money quote, IMHO, is, “The notion that the earth’s climate is dominated by positive feedbacks is intuitively implausible…” Bingo!
I’ll try to get to Lindzen’s paper later. Thanks for the links!