EXAMINER PUBLICATIONS – DECEMBER 2, 2009
Dear Senators Burris and Durbin, and Representatives Bean, Foster, Kirk and Roskam:
My name is Rich Trzupek. I am a columnist for Examiner Publications, which is published in several northwest Chicago suburbs. More importantly, in terms of this letter, I am also a chemist who has been practicing environmental science for over twenty five years, with a focus on air quality issues. Among other accomplishments in the field, I have helped develop USEPA air test methods and I am the author of McGraw-Hill’s “Air Quality Compliance and Permitting Manual”. This open letter is being published in all December 2 editions of The Examiner.
The recent release of files from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) are disturbing and you, our elected representatives, should take action to determine the extent of the fraud that has been perpetrated on the public.
I have personally reviewed the CRU files, as have many of my colleagues in the scientific community. These files have been characterized by some as e-mail records. While the CRU files do include copies of many e-mails, there is much more in the record than that. The data files, in particular, show that the leading scientists researching so-called “climate change” have substituted fanciful, unsubstantiated data in order to create the impression that planetary temperatures have been increasing alarmingly for the last fifty years, when in fact this has not been the case.
The record also shows, quite clearly, that some of the scientists engaged in climate change science privately acknowledge that planetary temperatures have been decreasing for the last decade and they bemoan the fact that their computer models can not explain this fact. This is in stark contrast to the public face that the climate-change community has maintained: denying that global cooling has in fact taken place since 1998 and assuring everyone that there is scientific consensus on this issue and in regard to all other important issues related to climate change.
The CRU record demonstrates several things:
1) Climate change researchers, including prominent scientists who are part of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), engaged in fraudulent data substitution when actual data did not fit their preconceived notions of global warming.
2) These researchers bullied scientific publications so that legitimate, peer-reviewed scientific studies that arrived at conclusions in conflict with the alarmist positions would not be published. In at least one instance, these alarmist scientists were successful in having the editor of a scientific journal removed for having published a study that was not to their liking.
3) These same researchers have repeatedly, knowingly and deliberately bastardized the scientific peer review process, such that only those who are sympathetic to global-warming alarmism are allowed to publicly review studies authored by fellow alarmists.
4) These researchers were directed to begin deleting e-mail records and other files, because skeptics like Stephen McIntyre and Anthony Watts were getting uncomfortably close to obtaining the files through the United Kingdom’s equivalent of the Freedom of Information Act. While this release of information has been commonly characterized as a “hack”, it seems much more likely that a whistle-blower inside CRU posted the files, given that the release came a day after CRU director Dr. Phillip Jones told everyone to begin deleting their e-mails.
Confronted with all of this damning evidence, alarmists like NASA’s Dr. Gavin Schmidt hastily recruited an army of straw men to deflect attention from the real issues. While never denying the authenticity of the CRU files, Schmidt declared that they are meaningless because they don’t demonstrate a global conspiracy involving the likes of George Soros or Al Gore.
Here, at least, Schmidt and his cronies are accurate. There is no evidence that suggests Soros, Gore or anyone else have been playing puppet-master to Schmidt, Jones, (Dr. Hockey Stick) Michael Mann or anyone else. But that is hardly the point. For skeptics like McIntyre, Watts, Dr. Roy Spencer – and even myself – the question has never been why the alarmist scientists go to such lengths to protect their theories. This has always been part of the scientific method. You defend your hypothesis as fiercely as possible. Surely, no scientist would need a Soros or Gore to motivate him or her to defend a theory.
The troubling question is rather: how? How have Schmidt, Jones, Mann, et al, been excused from the scientific process for so long? How could they have been allowed to circumvent the process by silencing the questions that are so essential to ensuring that science discovers new truths, rather than furthering personal agendas?
The release of the CRU files make clear what so many of us have long suspected. Economic interests have created an environment that allowed the alarmists to circumvent the scientific process. The “green economy” is nothing but short-hand for a massive transfer of wealth, motivated by fear. The community of alarmist scientists happily created the necessary panic-filled atmosphere and those with the most to gain – General Electric, Soros, Gore and so many others – have quietly ensured that nothing happens to threaten the supposed veracity of that narrative.
You are our elected representatives. You have sworn an oath to defend the nation and serve its people. I put it to you now that this is not a partisan political issue. Indeed, if you should trouble yourself to dig a little more deeply, you will find that there are many liberal scientists as troubled by the CRU revelations as is this conservative scientist.
It is up to you to act. It is up to you to demand the truth, no matter what such a revelation means to your political career personally, or to your party as a whole. The dubious theory of man-made global warming has already cost the world hundreds of billions of dollars in research and supposedly vital counter-measures. Given the extent of the CRU release, and given the state of the economy today, can you – in good conscience – justify spending one more, hard-earned, taxpayer dollar in an effort to combat a problem that may not exist at all – a “problem” that the US Department of Energy estimates will cost the average household at least double their electric bill to fix?
We await your response. If you choose to make one, please respond to the voters who read this publication, at: firstname.lastname@example.org