EPA Relied Heavily On Hadley CRU Data

With all the hullabaloo about the leaked emails from East Anglia's Hadley Climate Research Unit, one aspect of it that's not being talked about too much is agencies, such as the EPA and their reliance on that data to make energy policy. The continued analysis of the code contained within the leaked information clearly shows that fraud was the flavor of the day. Not only does it prove that data was deliberately being manipulated, but, databases were clearly in disarray and what one email from Phil Jones seems to indicate that he wanted material destroyed when skeptics discovered that the UK had a freedom of information act.

What one has to understand is that Hadley CRU wields enormous influence in outside circles and purportedly has the largest climate database in the world; it's models were used in the IPCC's 2007 report, which the EPA has acknowledged it relied upon very heavily when making conclusions that carbon dioxide emissions are a danger to public health.

As more and more information is being brought out by coders looking at the data, it seems that much has to be explained in those emails and data sets. But, what seems to be going around in the state run, fringe media is the legality of these emails being "hacked" and the predictable downplaying of its contents.

What these reporters are ignoring to ask is four important questions:

1. Is this the first time data has escaped Hadley?

2. Since the emails and data go back a number of years, how would a hacker know which emails were relevant and which emails were not?

3. Since the Copenhagen conference is fast approaching, isn't it a little odd that these emails were "hacked" and released to the world?

4. Why hasn't any investigation been called for?

Of course, we can't expect the fringe media to ask questions that may lead to unwanted answers.

Even though Senator Inhofe has called for an investigation, whether or not he will get the support of other Congressional members is the question. Many politicians have been bamboozled into believing the anthropogenic global warming hoax and are not likely to change their view points, particularly since a new revenue stream is in the works with cap and trade legislation.

In 1988, this entire issue was started by Maurice Strong and further propagated by James Hansen with a preconceived notion that the modern human industrial population was causing the earth's temperature to rise. Preconceived notions are supposed to be anathema to scientists, because it tends to send them looking for evidence to support it and discarding any that disproves it. What these emails and data sets show is that these scientists were doing everything they could to manipulate data and, in Phil Jones' own words, hide the decline when results were showing the opposite.

Science also demands sharing of data. Evidence must be verifiable and results must be reproducible in the real world by other scientists, this is how it goes through the filters to keep everyone honest in the process. However, this didn't seem to be the case with the Hadley scientists. Many times data had to be obtained from skeptical scientists through the Freedom of Information Act, which seems to indicate that something was trying to be hidden.