The New Scientific Method: Remove The Data That Doesn't Support My Theories

And this comes on the heels of yesterday's article about the global warming god, um..ahh...errr, I mean "climate change" god Al "jaba the" Gore. He's so smart! I should just shut up and stop pointing out inconsistencies.

Well, today the internet is abuzz after a major global-warming advocacy center in the UK had its e-mail system hacked and the data published on line. Yes, uh-oh. Here are some quotes from those emails, but first I have to repeat myself YET AGAIN! Isn't the role of the scientist supposed be that they follow the data no matter where it leads? Scientists come up with a theory and then apply data (observations of reality) to either prove or disprove the theory. But that is no longer being done in regards to the lie of global warming, or evolution for that matter. Rather we have scientists who so buy into their theories that the reject any data that opposes it. THAT IS NOT SCIENCE!

A couple of quotes from the emails (emphasis is mine):

Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N.

Nature trick? Hide the decline?

Subject: 1940s
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that theland also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips—higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this.It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

Pesky data. Making us have to explain those "blips". Sheeesh!