Kirsten Mortensen's blog

Scientists form hypotheses and then subject them to rigorous review and testing.

Propogandists attempt to shape public perception and opinions.

Given the contents of the files leaked from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglica University, it’s pretty clear the global warming community has been led by propogandists.

Their priority was not science.

It was controlling information. It was influencing the public’s perception of issues related to their pet cause.

If you’re looking for more reading on this, may I suggest:

• General background piece by an assistant professor of political science at the  University of Rochester.

• This piece on the CBS News blog is also useful background if you need to catch up on the basics of the story.

• Charlie Martin, who holds an MS in Computer Science from Duke University, takes a look at a so-far under-reported angle on the story: the computer code CRU researchers used to model their data.

• Longtime global warming skeptic Jeff Id (“an aeronautical engineer by training but work as an optical engineer”) published this blog post yesterday. It explains why he’s had longstanding issues with the Global Warming researchers’ use of “proxies” and suspect correlations.

• Here’s a thorough and enlightening reconstruction of CRU’s attempts to evade Freedom of Information requests, developed by Willis Eschenbach, a researcher who got involved when he asked CRU to share its temperature data.

• Greek hydrological engineer Demetris Koutsoyiannis likewise shares his experience in trying to work with leading global warming scientists.”

• Not directly related to the CRU scandal topically, but this 2008 paper by Steve McIntyre describes the work he had done to date in auditing climate data. It provides useful background on why so-called skeptic’s questions have validity.

• UPDATE: one more — the most comprehensive write-up of pro- and anti-global warming arguments on the planet.