I copied the following e-mails from the Global Research Website in Canada. They are correspondence between scientists in Britain and the US discussing nothing less than lying about climate change and obstructing opposition to their deliberately flawed research. The comments following each e-mail have been added by a commentator either from Global Research or the originator of the e-mails, Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper- the author is not made clear in the article I copied though the term "Climategate" was coined rather unimaginatively by a climate change sceptic on the Telegraph's staff.
Here are a selection of quotes from the e-mails stolen from computers at the University of East Anglia. Many involve Phil Jones, head of the university's Climatic Research Unit.
From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
Critics cite this as evidence that data was manipulated to mask the fact that global temperatures are falling. Prof Jones claims the meaning of "trick" has been misinterpreted
From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
The IPCC is the UN body charged with monitoring climate change. The scientists did not want it to consider studies that challenge the view that global warming is genuine and man-made.
From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"
Prof Trenberth appears to accept a key argument of global warming sceptics - that there is no evidence temperatures have increased over the past 10 years.
From: Phil Jones. To: Many. March 11, 2003
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”
Prof Jones appears to be lobbying for the dismissal of the editor of Climate Research, a scientific journal that published papers downplaying climate change.
From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008
"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise."
Climate change sceptics tried to use Freedom of Information laws to obtain raw climate data submitted to an IPCC report known as AR4. The scientists did not want their email exchanges about the data to be made public.
From: Michael Mann. To: Phil Jones and Gabi Hegerl (University of Edinburgh). Date: Aug 10, 2004
"Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future."
The scientists make no attempt to hide their disdain for climate change sceptics who request more information about their work.
Supporters of "anthropogenic climate change" (climate change caused by human behavior) have responded to these e-mails by pointing out they were obtained illegally, that they illustrate scientific methods in all their every day ugliness, that their authors are excessively passionate, that they don't alter the fact that polar ice caps are melting. However no one denies that the evidence that human activity is causing climate change is now most definitely up in the air.
Even though I have been sceptical myself that humans are responsible I continue to support the notion that better stewardship of the world's resources is critical- be it money, petroleum, clean water, clean air, trees or endangered species. The authors of these e-mails and their flawed scientific approach have made all that much harder to achieve, because in the politically charged atmosphere of economic meltdown and ecological catastrophe in which we live, we have one other source of previously reliable information we can no longer trust. A pox on them.
12 comments:
Dear Conch:
The green environmental movement has become a multi-billion dollar industry based on fear, coersion, and anecdotal studies that pass for fact. As a student of the philosophy "where there is smoke," I tend to be suspicious. My first thought was that petro-chemical companies -- and major users of petro-chemicals -- were out to sandbag the environmental movement.
Then little by little, I saw a lot of apparent discrepancies in research. Not that I am an expert, but in statements and questions raised by credible authorities who could not duplicate previous study results nor concur with them.
It was then I noted that the green movement response to many of these questions was to shun, discredit, or otherwise ignore the source of the inquiries.
For the record, I support the elimination of lead in gasoline, paint, and everyday products that find their way back into the ground, or drinking water, or wildlife, or babies. I support cars that use minimum gas and alternatives to travel methods that burn thousands of gallons of fuel -- in the stratosphere -- so two executives can meet for lunch. And I think growing corn for fuel is pure bullshit.
I think every smokestack should have a filter on it to drag the sulpher out of the air, regardless of the 3¢ it adds to each killowatt hour.
But we have created an environment where scientists are routinely paid to prove a conclusion... So they too can vacation in lush, tropical environments, paid for by grants, supported by the other side of big business.
By the way, I have been predicting the downfall of regional and short-haul airlines for years. New interest in high-speed rail (which will be no more profitable than air travel) is becoming more of a reality in the US.
The health care bill is starting to look like my dream pre-nuptual agreement. It's time for this shill of a President to toss it out and start from scratch. In another month, 25% of his Presidency will be over, with noting more to show for it than a continued blood trail to Afghanistan.
One year of sending 35,000 new troops to one of the most barren places on earth, will cost an additional $35 billion, over what we are already spending.
That is assuming one does not attempt to put a price on the sons and daughters of America, left for dead, in exchange for winning the hearts and minds of the drug dealers to the world.
How much health care would $35 billion (annually) buy -- deducting the amount spent on prosthetic limbs and caskets?
Tell "Bowing Obama" to bring the troops home -- now.
Fondest regards,
Jack • Reep • Toad
Twisted Roads
hard to disagree. but where are the climategate headlines in the US. On the right wing nutcase sites only?
I am for a green movement, but I am more for common sense. Being green is a good thing (as Riepe eluded).
However, it needs to be balanced by practicality (but being lazy is not practicality).
What these scientist did, amounts to political pandering, and does nothing to help their cause. The real irony is their motives might have been to aid a positive long term cause, but they took the short term view and action that backfired.
#fail
Mr Conchscooter:
The problem is that we are only fed what "they" want us to know and statistics can always be skewed to show whatever results are needed.
I see so much waste in this world by regular people who have no regard to save our resources. I try my best to go green but it's an uphill battle.
bob
bobskoot: wet coast scootin
Your other political entries tend to be more thoughtful than this one. There is no mention of the equally convincing rebuttals from realclimate.org, or the fact that other academic institutions far from the CRU, have endorsed essentially the same conclusions. Every day the Internet births a new genius who really thinks that countless scientific academies around the world really never thought of normalizing for solar activity, cloud formation, or whatever else makes them smarter than phDs this week. No attempt is made to answer such tripe, as the person spouting it has clearly made no attempt at reading a single research paper on the matter. I don't care about your political persuasions or who some jackass in Washington bows to, but people should take the time to listen to themselves before publishing essays about how all the world's scientists are engaged in a dark collusion to mislead you. Three people can keep a secret, only if two of them are dead. There is no great climate conspiracy, even if Al Gore is a jerk hoping to get rich selling carbon credits.
-Christopher, Cudjoe Key
And here we have a perfect example of the man who gets so pissed off over this issue one has to wonder why those bloody scientists had to mess with the numbers, if they were legitimate. How does Angry Christopher on Cudjoe now convince his down market neighbors (Big Piners and all that rabble) that human induced climate change is a legitimate concern that they should take seriously? The wise men of East Anglia have made a right cock of it haven't they? Now climate change looks like a conspiracy fo the New World Order. Bugger.
Pissed off? Angry? Simmer down now. I know better than to try to convince a Piner of anything, and I didn't say a word about anthropomorphism. My point is that we should keep the commentary rational. There are extremely good reasons for not referring to a tree-ring record for climate data that is less than 60 years old. That a man's private communication in which he called this "hiding the decline" was dug up and exposed, is incredibly unfortunate, but only one side of the story is usually presented here, and that presentation tends to be sensationalized.
Its all about extending the denial debate,
I question why the denial machine waited so long to fabricate (?)a story of hacked (?) emails...
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/video.html
I don't think this a fabrication to extend the denial debate. These e-mails will just make it harder for anyone to push for needed changes in the way we live and the way we think about how we live. And even if these idiots had the best intentions they have made it harder, if not impossible to promote changes at the meeting in Copenhagen.
The Coconut Telegraph is a blazing example of people well beyond hope of redemption when it comes to debating climate change.
In the end I believe the only way to change is to be pushed into by economics. When gas hits $6 a gallon we'll all be in smart cars or on motorcycles...until then watch them f350s and SUVs roll along.
Maybe few headlines in the papers you've been reading or sites you've been hitting, but I keep seeing articles about it on news.yahoo.com and my local newspaper web sites, and Seattle isn't exactly a right-wing stronghold. An example from today: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2010405281_apsciclimatehearing.html
That said, while this is definitely unfortunate and even at least somewhat explosive, it's also limited WRT what it entails. Given the diversity of research and researchers and plenty of evidence that is independent of the center in question, I don't see this as a reason to dismiss the broad general scientific agreement that warming is occurring and that it's at least partially due to human activity.
These emails and the research should absolutely be looked into and evidence examined, but without some much broader indications, I have trouble imagining that all this global research is so completely off-base or that there is some conspiracy - a global conspiracy at that - that has managed to hoodwink the vast, vast majority of the scientific community.
Already some delegates to the Copenhagen conference are saying these e-mails make a nonsense of the purpose of the meeting. The whole issue is so politicized that opponents will use this to tear down the fabric of the claims that humans are helping the climate to change. And the question is: will we get to see the datat they have been relying on to push their point of view? Google "Speeches Michael Crichton" to read his very thought provoking ideas on the subject.
Perhaps the vast majority of the scientific should take the opportunity to say where they stand on these e-mails, and do it loudly?
I am coming to the conclusion the only way anything will change is when it is forced by economics- costly gas will force people into small cars, lack of work will push people into green inductries. Darwinism at it's worst and most brutal.
Nice job, Thanks
Post a Comment