In this shocking travesty of supposed ‘science’ never lose sight of the fact that the University of East Anglia was - and is - one of the two key sources of all research into the now disproved Global Warming phenomenon.
What is worrying is that the response by the media in Britain. They are trying to hush it up. The news bulletins have largely ignoired it and the newspapers have buried it on the proverbial Page 94. (The fact that I've found full reports obscures the fact that these are well hidden. )
It seems that there's too much of political networking and money involved in the whole business to derail this bandwagon. How's that for a conspiracy of silence ?
Christina
================================
WALL STREET JOURNAL 24.11.09
Global Warming With the Lid Off
The emails that reveal an effort to hide the truth about climate science.
'The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. . . . We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."
So apparently wrote Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) and one of the world's leading climate scientists, in a 2005 email to "Mike." Judging by the email thread, this refers to Michael Mann, director of the Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center. We found this nugget among the more than 3,000 emails and documents released last week after CRU's servers were hacked and messages among some of the world's most influential climatologists were published on the Internet.
The "two MMs" are almost certainly Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, two Canadians who have devoted years to seeking the raw data and codes used in climate graphs and models, then fact-checking the published conclusions—a painstaking task that strikes us as a public and scientific service. Mr. Jones did not return requests for comment and the university said it could not confirm that all the emails were authentic, though it acknowledged its servers were hacked.
Yet even a partial review of the emails is highly illuminating. In them, scientists appear to urge each other to present a "unified" view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the "common cause"; to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to "hide the decline" of temperature in certain inconvenient data.
Some of those mentioned in the emails have responded to our requests for comment by saying they must first chat with their lawyers.
Others have offered legal threats and personal invective. Still others have said nothing at all. Those who have responded have insisted that the emails reveal nothing more than trivial data discrepancies and procedural debates.
Yet all of these nonresponses manage to underscore what may be the most revealing truth: That these scientists feel the public doesn't have a right to know the basis for their climate-change predictions, even as their governments prepare staggeringly expensive legislation in response to them.
Consider the following note that appears to have been sent by Mr. Jones to Mr. Mann in May 2008: "Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. . . . Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?" AR4 is shorthand for the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, presented in 2007 as the consensus view on how bad man-made climate change has supposedly become.
In another email that seems to have been sent in September 2007 to Eugene Wahl of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Paleoclimatology Program and to Caspar Ammann of the National Center for Atmospheric Research's Climate and Global Dynamics Division, Mr. Jones writes: "[T]ry and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with."
When deleting, doctoring or withholding information didn't work, Mr. Jones suggested an alternative in an August 2008 email to Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, copied to Mr. Mann. "The FOI [Freedom of Information] line we're all using is this," he wrote. "IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI—the skeptics have been told this. Even though we . . . possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part of our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don't have an obligation to pass it on."
It also seems Mr. Mann and his friends weren't averse to blacklisting scientists who disputed some of their contentions, or journals that published their work. "I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal," goes one email, apparently written by Mr. Mann to several recipients in March 2003. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."
Mr. Mann's main beef was that the journal had published several articles challenging aspects of the anthropogenic theory of global warming.
For the record, when we've asked Mr. Mann in the past about the charge that he and his colleagues suppress opposing views, he has said he "won't dignify that question with a response." Regarding our most recent queries about the hacked emails, he says he "did not manipulate any data in any conceivable way," but he otherwise refuses to answer specific questions. For the record, too, our purpose isn't to gainsay the probity of Mr. Mann's work, much less his right to remain silent.
However, we do now have hundreds of emails that give every appearance of testifying to concerted and coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their critics. In the department of inconvenient truths, this one surely deserves a closer look by the media, the U.S. Congress and other investigative bodies.
===============================
DAILY MAIL 25.11.09
Scientist in climate change 'cover-up' storm told to quit
By DAVID DERBYSHIRE
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.
'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.
polls
'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.
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 [in this context ‘peer’ means people who agree with them and equally receive government funding -cs] 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 [That’s what matters to them - ‘security’ - not the perversion of the scientific truth -cs] and on its response to 60 freedom of information requests over a short period.
Posts
