factbat.com

The House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee actually has the gall to now claim that “they have seen no evidence to support charges that the university of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming.”

British officials stated Tuesday that as far as they are able to ascertain -- obviously while their heads are up their arses -- “the scientific reputation of professor Jones and the CRU remains intact." Adding that nothing in the more than 1,000 exposed emails, or controversy kicked up by their publication, challenged the alleged scientific consensus that “global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity.”

But then this assertion is one which enables some of the most lucrative and far-reaching profit margins in history because they are the precursor to a cap and trade mechanism which is designed to regulate, and generate revenue from the use of, what is nearly the most prolific gas on the planet...CO2. Furthermore, this gas is a major building block of all life.

But it's not like anybody with more than a CO2 molecule's worth of intelligence actually expected them to simply hand over the smoking gun they shot themselves in the foot with, especially after they have already been proven to be an utterly contemptuous bunch of lying buffoons.

I mean really, just what do they have to lose by now lying further? The only response anyone could truly expect from such ilk is to continue the lie. Once again the Hitler response proves to be one that most officials cling to; the one that say’s “if you are going to tell a lie, make it a big lie and just keep telling it until everyone believes it or is merely too afraid to oppose it.” Nice strategy folks!

But of course, there is also some wonderfully creative explanations proffered by these perfidious sophists, when attempting to cover for the white coated hacks who corresponded with statements detailing a “trick to hide the decline in temperatures.”

Why, the word “trick”, as defined by the 14 member committee, merely means “a neat way of handling evidence”, and the words “hide the decline” are just an innocent use of “sciency-shorthand” no average lowly citizen can disseminate means “discarding erroneous data.” No, "discarding erroneous data" means discarding erroneous data.

But of course all scientists speak in such confusing and illogical ways right? Then why has no scientist in history ever been displayed using this type of ignorant jargon.

I’ll tell you why. Because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. And the average scientist is first and foremost a skeptic who is only convinced by many levels of redundant empirical data that displays identical results in every test.

Regardless of the fact that the Parliamentary despots in “Jolly Old England” conscripted their assistance in selling the most destructive money making scheme in history, these scientists still could not help but seek the truth, and were completely out of their element when attempting to enter the deceptive world of politics. Most any scientist does not naturally possess the talent of ambiguity, and thus would find it nearly intolerable to actually falsify data. The best one can expect from the average scientific mind, is to somehow attempt to hide the truth it is conditioned to expose.

However, now the politicians are trying their hand at indemnifying these dolts, because goodness knows that if they allow Jones and the other scientists to actually speak for themselves they are likely to slip up and go telling the truth again, and the corrupt money mavens can’t be having that!

The actual quotes by the 14 memeber committee was “Hide the decline was not an attempt to conceal data, but was scientific shorthand for discarding erroneous data” and “Similarly, Jones intended trick to mean a neat way of handling evidence, rather than anything underhanded.”

So just what does the committee say about the emails that show Jones and others from the University of East Anglia discussing how to avoid the pesky “freedom of information” laws in America?

Well, Phil Willis, the committee’s chairman, said of the emails “there’s no denying that some of them were pretty appalling.”

Why, you don’t say Mr. Chairman! But of course this appalling behavior has absolutely no indications nor implications does it? This is just simply appalling behavior by trained experts for the sake of being appalling right?

Evidently (see me can be sciency too, what with me evidence and all) Mr. Willis and his preposterous horde unanimously concur with this blasphemous position, since they found “no evidence of anything beyond a blunt refusal to share data", adding that "the idea that Jones was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that weakened the case for global warming was clearly wrong.”

Except that the conspiracy was exposed when they conferred to work together in hiding the data. Who really cares why they did it. Such acts then do become part of the investigation into motive. Remember that boys? Motive? It typically helps to prove culpability. As well, don't forget the old saying in police work..."just follow the money."

There is so much more to write on this subject, but the time is up for the moment. More on this in the days to come…