http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230635/Scientist-climate-change-cover-storm-told-quit.html#
Scientist in climate change 'cover-up' storm told to quit
By David DerbyshireLast updated at 9:45 PM on 24th November 2009
The scientist at the heart of the climate change scandal was under growing pressure to quit last night.
George Monbiot, a leading environmentalist, said Phil Jones should resign from the Climatic Research Unit over leaked emails that appear to show researchers suppressed scientific data.
More emails came to light yesterday, including one in which an American climatologist admitted it was a travesty that scientists could not explain a lack of global warming in recent years.
In another note, UK researchers dismissed the work of scientists challenging global warming as 'crap'.
Another appeared to call for pressure on the BBC after a reporter suggested that evidence for rising temperatures since 2001 was thin.
In one of the most damning messages, Professor Jones appeared to respond to the death of a climate sceptic with the words 'in an odd way this is cheering news!'.
The leak has been a huge embarrassment to the climate unit at the University of East Anglia, which is a global leader in its field.
Although there is no hint of evidence that climate change is not real, the emails appear to show researchers manipulating raw data and discussing how to dodge Freedom of Information requests.
Yesterday, Mr Monbiot, who writes on green issues, said the emails could scarcely be more damaging.
More...
'I won't let the b*****s out until they've done a deal': Climate change envoy John Prescott reveals unusual approach to solving global warming
Global warming could lead to increased flooding and rising food prices in UK, claim leading scientists
'I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken,' he said. 'There are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad.
'There appears to be evidence of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a Freedom of Information request.
'Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
'The head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.'
Bob Ward, a climate expert at the London School of Economics and Political Science, demanded an independent inquiry.
'From what I've seen of the emails, there's not been any new questions raised about the way papers have been put together, but there should be an re-examination of the emails,' he said.
The emails - which appeared last week on a Russian website - appear to have been stolen from a university computer server.
Enlarge
Yesterday, Professor Jones refused to quit and denied that researchers had altered evidence to bolster the case for man-made climate change.
He added: 'We absolutely stand by the science we produce here at the University of East Anglia and it has been peer reviewed and published.
'Some of the emails probably had poorly chosen words and were sent in the heat of the moment, when I was frustrated. I do regret sending some of them. We've not deleted any emails or data here at CRU.
'I would never manipulate the data one bit - I would categorically deny that.' The university is to conduct an independent review of data security and on its response to 60 freedom of information requests over a short period.
˜ At least half the 36 UK officials and ministers travelling to the climate change talks in Copenhagen are going by air rather than by rail.
The Liberal Democrats said the arrangements showed up Labour's hypocrisy on green issues.
The Government said officials had meetings that limited their travel options next month.
11 comments:
Those scoundrels! I don't even know where to begin. And the worst part is that is only the beginning. One can't fathom how far and deep this has and will go. AGW could be, in my opinion, the biggest scam in modern history.
I am very angry about this. But I am sure plenty of adults who pay taxes are far angrier than I. I'm very curious to see how much Tax-Payer money has been stolen and then wasted over the past 10 years or longer over this nonsense.
Now that these fools have been exposed I think it is fully safe to say that the Earth isn't being warmed by man, in fact, that it isn't warming at all at this point but cooling. The warmest year on this Globe in the micro-second of recorded History is 1998(assuming the numbers in that statement aren't tainted) and since 1998 the Earth has been in a cooling trend, that's the Inconvenient Truth for the Global Warming Extremists.
This has all stemmed off of the Idea that Carbon Dioxide being emitted by mankind is collecting in the Atmosphere and that once it reaches a certain amount it will turn the Earth into a baking oven killing us all. This is just nonsense.
Carbon is not a pollutant, and it is not causing any kind of "Global Warming". Carbon is actually the building block of all life (learned that in 1st grade).
Those fools actually call themselves scientists. They should be embarrassed to call themselves a part of the Scientific Community. Those scoundrels aren't in it for the Science; they are in it for the money. It’s as simple as that.
ONLYREAL
This is all pretty intense. Thanks for posting these Bob, Your word means a lot in these matters. I think people need to be very careful, because as a segment certainly had their doubt from the start, there are people who bought this and fought for it, and now their work seems to be in vain at the moment. Which is of course those who throw things around like "out of context" and the "ethical" way this information was found. It's hard to accept a passion one formulated was one created out of being duped.
As far as I can tell none of the underlying science has been meaningfully contested as a result of these emails.
Do any of these articles Bob is linking to explain how the GW science conducted by these scientists has been revealed to be fraudulent, or do they just echo out-of-context snippets and misdirected outrage?
Parts of England looked like New Orleans after Katrina, worse flooding in over 1000 yrs of record history... something is changing..
Must use sea temps to debat if earth is warming and guess what... they are increasing.. Earth IS warming... may not be influenced by man but she is ah warm'n up.
If you go on the various websites, you'll read how the Alarmists worked with each other to "fudge" the data. Now that the Earth has cooled the past 3 years (contrary to their model predictions), they are trying to come up with theories as to why. If in reading the various site you can't see that these scientists had an agenda, then you have drunk from the Kool-Aid of AGW. I have said before, there is some truth to BOTH sides of the argument. Let's clean up pollution, leave a smaller personal impact on the Planet"s resourses...but do it because it's the right thing to do and NOT because it will help stop something that is always happening...that is Climate Change.
Bob, it is so good to see someone with a working knowledge of weather and climate question this global warming alarmism. The earth has been cooler (ice ages) and warmer (ice free) than it is now. Analysis of the Vostok ice core show cycles of high and low temperatures. Increase in CO2 seems to follow temperature change (not lead it). This CO2 increase may be a result of biologic activity. Since the last ice age, the earth seems to be generally warming, but shows cycles of heating and cooling. Historical information seems to support cyclicity, like the Medieval Warming Period and subsequent Little Ice Age. In the 20th century it appears that earlier (1930’s) was a warm period, possibly warmer than the 1990’s, with a cooling cycle in between. It seems that in the last few years it is cooling (or at least not warming) again. CO2 is a green house gas. The computer models compound positive (for heating) reinforcement to get the catastrophic effect. Some important factors as sunspot activity and land use do not seem to be considered. These are only models, not observed data. For models to be useful, they must accurately predict an outcome. The models used to date, have missed the current trend of non-warming. Most CO2 is produced naturally. The amount of CO2 generated by human activity is small relative to the total. Restricting energy use to the point of significantly impacting the amount of CO2 generated would force mankind back to a pre-fire, hunter/gatherer society. I agree we should do more towards energy conservation and finding better energy supplies, but we shouldn’t be taxed back to the stone age for fear of an unlikely event.
These are the FACTS! in the Case for Global Warming:
1.Since the latter part of the 19th century, the temperatures of earth have risen 1 degree Celsius.
2.Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere have risen significantly in the last 150 years.
3.The polar ice caps are melting.
4.Hurricanes and other severe whether events may be increasing in frequency due to documented ocean water temperature increases.
5.1998 was the warmest year on record.
6.Sea levels are rising.
7.Ecosystems and animal species are disappearing.
Sorry Caveman, your attitude and penchant for nearly screaming your words out of my monitor compared to the calm and sensible Breck and Earth Scientist leads me to go to the ones who don't strike me like they NEED to prove something, as you and alarmists do strike me. My main problem with Liberals and Foo Fighters fans too.
Bob, guys, the Ex-Stream media is NOT covering this. Not on NBC, not on MSNBC, ABC, CBS, not any of them. It's only covered by FOX news. The NY Times mentioned it on about page 22.
These folks ain't giving up so easily. They will continue to deny what's placed before them. It just goes to show you that they are not even embarrassed by something they should be humiliated by.
This mentality will not change.
You say that Craig and I agree, but even before this I haven't heard a lot about GW except from there and theres. This biggest story I heard recently was China yelling about countries not doing their part. I think many nations still don't want to be totally "seen" as agreeing Communist ideologies.
Baxrer,
You are right. But the problem with mandates is that certain countries with populations growing out of control, namely India and China, realistically won't be able to reduce emissions just by virtue of their populations. My position is that I believe we should do what is possible to conserve and find alternative sources. But the fact is that the technology (wind power, solar power etc)is not there to adequately replace fossil fuels. No matter what we do we won't phase out fossils fuels in 10, 20 or even 50 years. We have resources here in the US in the form of coal shale, oil and natural gas to supply the US for 300 years. Maybe by then we will have developed those alternative sources, but it can't happen now. Certain folks don't want us to drill for oil or harvest oil shale. The environmentalists will continue to stymie efforts. But here's a sideline. Those same folks have no problem with Louisiana destroying their coastline from oil production activity that benefits them.
A happy medium must be met, but the glow warmies are so staunch on their side, that their agenda doesn't allow for eventual change, it mandates provisions to punish those NOW for "overusing" fossil fuels wrapped up in the guise of climate change.
I'll keep saying it till the day I die, MAN cannot change the climate.
Post a Comment