Everything You've Always Suspected About the Global Warming 'Consensus' May Be True

Update:Watts Up With That? looks at the "hide the decline" email and discovers incriminating evidence hidden in the programmer source code:

Computes regressions on full, high and low pass Esper et al. (2002) series,
; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline

Thanks to Ace of Spades.

Over the weekend it was reported that "hackers" had stolen electronic data from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Britain, one of the most prominent Climate Change proponent institutions in the world. The data were posted on the intertubes by "FOIA," a nom de plume that leads me to suspect a whistleblower rather than a hacker, as the scientists whose files were taken discuss the troubles of dealing with British Freedom of Information Act requests.

The hacked (or leaked?) emails and documents from the East Anglia Climate Research Unit paint a picture that seems less about modern scientists engaged in research than it does about medieval inquisitors engaged in protecting the True Faith.

The emails reveal a three-pronged approach to achieving the political ambitions of the Global Warming Movement.

Massage and package the data. Excerpted from 942777075.txt:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Suppress dissenting views by controlling the peer review process. Excerpted from 1089318616.txt (emphasis added):

...The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see it. I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!
Cheers Phil

Excerpted from 1106322460.txt:

...I'm not sure that GRL [Geophysical Research Letters] can be seen as an honest broker in these debates anymore, and it is probably best to do an end run around GRL now where possible. They have published far too many deeply flawed contrarian papers in the past year or so. There is no possible excuse for them publishing all 3 Douglass papers and the Soon et al paper. These were all pure crap. There appears to be a more fundamental problem w/ GRL now,unfortunately...Mike

Fight "skeptics" by denying Freedom of Information Act inquiries. Excerpted from 1228330629/txt:

When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions - one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school - the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I've got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief Librarian - who deals with appeals.

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) has called for a congressional probe into the shenanigans at CRU. Expect it to go nowhere because Inhofe has an "R" after his name and looking into this business would endanger the Democrats' much-coveted Cap and Trade bill.

An Elegant Chaos has created a searchable archive of the emails.

Retired climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball discusses the CRU email scandal: