Arcane structure of the cosmos
Immense evolutions of species
And I, with my vague impression
of the indeterminate,
of anxieties, thoughts,
of the perplexities made visions,
I collect my data
of the soul, the secrets,
of my hidden and unacknowledged dreams.
And I look for fixities made of stones. 
I look for balance and poor food.
Oh light that the universe sets
dissolve my anxieties to certainties. 
Free expression. 
of this conscience of mine.
I would like to shout to the cosmos
with my broken voice
when I am sand in the desert
my mother's name
and stand by her.
I only ask this and I am happy.


Climategate (CG), the scandal that, thanks to an anonymous web hacker, revealed the exchange of e-mails, which occurred in the period 1996-2009, between a small team of climate "scientists", very cheaters, from which it was deduced how they had completely falsified the data to make it appear on purpose that that of the last half of the last century was an unprecedented warming. They are not ordinary people: it is precisely those who had the responsibility to compile that part of the IPCC report (the UN Committee proposed to study the anthropic contribution to the planet's climate) which states that the current global warming (GR) is "without previous "and is" of anthropogenic origin ".
The main actors of the CG are two: Phil Jones (PJ), hydraulic engineer and Director of the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University in England and Mike Mann (MM) of the American University of Pennsylvania, a failed physicist in his field. and who, devoting himself to the climate, became famous for the “golf club” graph that shows how the current RG would be “unprecedented”. As we will see, the graph turned out to be an artfully constructed scientific fake. The list of senders and / or recipients of e-mails includes other minor elements of the band and some external ones. That the current GR should be "unprecedented" was already decided by the World Meteorological Organization (Omm), which declared in the 1985 congress: "we believe that due to anthropogenic emissions we could witness an unprecedented increase in the global average temperature" . PJ and MM set out to become famous by giving substance to the prediction of the Omm, and they did so by conspiring the biggest scientific scandal of the century, as emerges from the exchange of their e-mails: just read them. It is they themselves who in e-mails refer to themselves as "conspirators".
For example, to determine past temperatures when thermometric data did not exist, these grabbers had decided that measuring the thickness of tree rings was a good "gauge" of a thermometer. It is not, and other independent "indicators" were needed for this. The person studying the problem was a certain K. Briffa, a collaborator of PJ. To PJ, MM and others of the Briffa team he sent the following e-mail: "I know they put a lot of pressure on us to present a decent story that justifies an" evident warming unprecedented in the last 1000 years or more ", but the reality is that the situation is not that simple. We don't have a lot of data from independent "indicators", and what we have does not coincide with the recent warming ».
This means that the indicators, wrong on the current temperatures, were therefore not reliable on the temperatures of the past, when there were no thermometric data and, consequently, it was not legitimate to argue that today's high temperatures were "unprecedented". But here's how the two main conspirators responded. MM: "Everyone here at the IPCC agrees that Briffa's is a problem and a potential distraction / detractor from the consensus we would like to convey. It would then be appropriate for us to invent "something else" as responsible for the discrepancy. Maybe Briffa has some ideas about it? We absolutely have to write a few lines otherwise skeptics will tell us we don't understand our own results. "
Another recurring theme that emerges from the e-mails is the determination with which the team influenced which articles should be published and which rejected. The field in question is very small and, almost inevitably, the articles in the sector ended up on the desk of at least one of the critical review team: they purposely rejected all articles that questioned the so-called consensus and accepted those that supported that consensus. I don't quote examples for the sake of brevity, but it is fun to exchange emails between PJ and MM to understand how PJ, a hydraulic engineer, was awarded a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union (AGU). Pay attention to the dates. MM wrote to PJ (December 2007): «I'm trying to get you an award from AGU. They told me that the Ewing medal would not be appropriate. Let me know what you prefer and let me know ". PJ chooses his award: «Becoming a Fellow of the AGU would be fine». MM to PJ (June 2008): “I'm putting together 5 letters of recommendation for that AGU award. Together with mine as proponent - even if I am not yet a Fellow - they make 6 letters ».
In one of the final e-mails of this deplorable saga, when the scandal was already coming to light with the first e-mails revealed, Kevin Trenberth, one of the conspiratorial team, wrote disconsolately to the others (we are in October 2009): "The the fact is that we are unable to justify the lack of heating in the last 10 years ”. But, in a last desperate attempt, he wondered: “Maybe the measurements are wrong. Our observation system is inadequate ". Obviously without realizing that, if that were the case, the entire climatology, as told by 97% of self-styled climatologists, is a bluff. Maybe he was right.

%d bloggers like this: