Shield­ing the scam

The Washington Times Weekly - - Letters To The Editor -

Re: your ar­ti­cle in the Nov. 30 edi­tion ti­tled “Cli­mate czar re­jects claims e-mails dis­credit global warm­ing” (page 3). . . big sur­prise there. This global So­cial­ist would not know a sci­en­tific trea­tise from a fairy tale. Carol Browner’s state­ment that “the emails are only trick­ling out and that the en­tire set hasn’t been re­leased” speaks vol­umes about her cred­i­bil­ity. How does she know what the “set” con­tains un­less she was privy to the whole scam?

She tells the whop­per that skep­tics are a very small group who say the prob­lem is not real, and she is stick­ing with the 2500 “sci­en­tists” who say it is. In the U.S. alone, over 30,000 sci­en­tists of many rel­e­vant dis­ci­plines have pub­licly signed pe­ti­tions de­nounc­ing this junk sci­ence. Sim­i­lar pe­ti­tions are cir­cu­lat­ing in other coun­tries, and skep­ti­cism is ris­ing. Sci­ence, how­ever, is not about pe­ti­tions and opin­ion — it is about proof or dis­proof of hy­pothe­ses through ex­per­i­men­ta­tion and hon­est peer re­view, and it is on this score that the IPCC ef­fort that caused this up­roar is to­tally lack­ing.

At this mo­ment there are Free­dom of In­for­ma­tion pe­ti­tions be­fore NASA and other gov­ern­ment agen­cies re­quest­ing sus­pect doc­u­ments that would in­di­cate that a de­lib­er­ate fraud was per­pe­trated on the tax­pay­ers. Most, if not all of th­ese have been ig­nored, just one more ex­am­ple of the “trans­parency” of the cur­rent ad­min­is­tra­tion. Paul Lin­sen Chadds Ford, Penn­syl­va­nia

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.