The university says Phil Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review into allegations that he worked to alter the way in which global temperature data was presented.
Climate politics continue to be interesting. Australia’s opposition Liberal Party has ousted its leader, Malcolm Turnbull, after the resignation last week of several senators from their “front-seat” positions. The Aussie government’s climate change bill is now in jeopardy, raising the potential of an early general election in 2010.
The Climategate emails and documents are being investigated by a number of organizations, including an inquiry by Penn State University, where Michael Mann, creator of the discredited hockey stick graph – used by Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth – is a professor. Inquiries are also under way at the University of East Anglia, the source of the leaked material. Government investigations are either ongoing or pending and there has been at least one civil lawsuit filed.
At a minimum, the emails document the violation of UK Freedom of Information laws.
Many believe that the leaker was not a hacker, but, rather, was an insider acting as a anonymous whistleblower by leaking the emails and documents, including information that had been unsuccessfully been sought under the UK FOI statutes.
The emails are not the only incriminating material. Computer codes and their documentation show fudged numbers and “blatant data-cooking” that tell a story of twisting reality to a desired view.
Many of the fantastic claims in the media about climate change are likely predicated on the same sort of skewed science.
An article in the Wall Street Journal titled The Climate Science Isn’t Settled, by Richard S. Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT gives a more balanced view of the state of climate science.
Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre. There is general support for the assertion that GATA has increased about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the middle of the 19th century. The quality of the data is poor, though, and because the changes are small, it is easy to nudge such data a few tenths of a degree in any direction. Several of the emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) that have caused such a public ruckus dealt with how to do this so as to maximize apparent changes.
While I have been skeptical of global warming claims for quite some time, this Climategate fiasco appears to show a conspiracy to doctor the evidence.
In my interest in climate change, I wasn’t looking for a conspiracy, just the truth.
Click for Exit78 Pinterest policy.
{ 19 comments }
My husband has been closely following the drama and gives me occasional updates, whether I want them or not.
Vered – I’ve been trying to limit how often I update Karen. It’s my obsession, not hers.
While I suspected something was not on the up and up for some time at East Anglia from some of the blogs I subscribe to, I never expected this kind of — to use your word — drama.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125970198500271683.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Climate scientist Phil Jones of the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia will remain on staff, but step down from his lab leadership job, until an independent investigation concludes into controversial stolen emails there.
Unknown hackers penetrated a computer system at the university last month and released 1,037 emails and thousands of documents, stretching from 1996 to 2009, from the university’s Climate Research Lab (CRU), sparking an online brawl over climate science.
“What is most important is that CRU continues its world leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible,” Jones said in a statement. “After a good deal of consideration I have decided that the best way to achieve this is by stepping aside from the Director’s role during the course of the independent review.”
Critics such as climatologist Pat Michaels of the Cato Institute say that emails released by the hackers suggest Jones and colleagues have attempted to suppress studies critical of man-made global warming data.
I am of the opinion that science needs to be proved. I am not sold.
Humbly leaving a large carbon footprint,
Fred
Fred – For science to be proven, it has to be shared and it has to take the risk of being falsified — demonstrated to be wrong — by other scientists. With the climate data not being shared openly, other scientists do not have the opportunity to prove it wrong — or prove it wrong. I’ve come to learn that this definition of falsification of theories and hypotheses is an important part of science.
Unfortunately, it appears that falsification of the more commonly understood kind has been occurring.
I’m not only not sold on the anthropogenic global warming science, I’m more convinced than ever that it is wrong.
Don’t believe what you read on the Internet. Those are only one person’s opinion. If I’m to believe anything, it has to be the compiled scientific studies, that’s on the News all over the world.
bikehikebabe – I’m not just going with one person’s opinion. Over the last eighteen months or so, I’ve been studying the issue extensively. I’ve read several books and dozens of scientific papers related to climate change, including significant portions of the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I’ve watched numerous videos related to climate change, many of them lectures or presentations by climate scientists. I even started a climate change blog, only to abandon it when I found my climate change interest becoming too much of an obsession — and that there were plenty of other blogs out there doing a much better job than I would ever be able to do.
I downloaded all of the leaked emails and files and, though I have only read a small fraction of them, have found enough in them to believe that some people may be criminally liable. I have also read quite a bit of the comments in a programmer’s readme file that appear to show that some of the data that much of the climate change predictions and models are based on was tweaked to make climate change look far worse than it really is.
I get most of my news on the subject from Science Magazine. The consensus there seems to be that the earth is warming up and that we humans will have to deal with the consequences. As far as I can tell they haven’t said much yet about Climategate. I’m curious to see how they will handle it.
.-= Jean Browman–Cheerful Monk´s last blog ..Creating Memories =-.
Jean – Incredibly, the long-term global historical temperature anomaly that the “consensus” is based on comes from two terrestrial datasets, both of which may be tainted by this.
I must admit I’ve been skeptical of what you’ve been saying, as I was under the impression that information came from various nations and groups of scientists. But here it seems clear that, for political or whatever reasons, people have been monkeying with the data. I’m glad it was exposed, though I wish it had been sooner.
.-= Dot´s last blog ..Comment on Full Disclosure by Dot =-.
Dot – Information IS coming from various nations and groups of scientists. Unfortunately, much of the science is being done under the presumption that anthropogenic global is proven science instead of unproven hypothesis. It’s equally unfortunate that many good, honest scientists’ work may be based, at least in part, on the tainted datasets.
Mike — I must admit you are way ahead of me on this subject. Whether or not the numbers are cooked, I think there’s still a very important point to be made. We have a responsibility to this planet. At this time, it’s the only one we know will support our lives.
I understand and agree with what you’re saying about the importance of accurate and true science. I also think that people are using global warming for political reasons. But, from my perspective, if it takes fear of global warming to jump start our feeling of responsibility for this planet, then maybe that’s a good thing.
.-= Sara´s last blog ..Sitting Empty on the Beach =-.
Sara – The problem with using global warming as an issue for the planet is that the measures that are being proposed create a new financial market based on carbon trading — like we don’t have enough problems with our current financial institutions — and, if enacted, impose financial and legal burdens far out of proportion to the actual tiny good that will be accomplished.
The climate change issue is actually a negative, in some respects, when it comes to the planet and social issues. Because of the overwhelming — and largely unwarranted, in my view, — attention that is being given to climate change, little or no attention is being paid to issues where action could truly make a very significant difference at a small fraction of the proposed cost. I’m talking about, for example, things like mitigation of disastrous land use policies, clean water for everyone, eliminating preventable disease from the underdeveloped countries, and adaptation, if required, to the small amount of climate change that may actually occur.
The Climategate emails and code comments do highlight some problems with the attitude of these scientists to the release of data but the affair is by no means the nail in the coffin for Anthropogenic Global Warming that opponents would like it to be. It’s understandable that people who are unwilling to contemplate any change in their lifestyles will leap on this before Copenhagen.
As far as data sets are concerned there are a number of other independently held databases which show the story. Even if they didn’t exist there are many other lines of evidence.
Just to address one issue as an example -
Much is made of the reference to the use of a “trick” in handling the data. The “trick” being referred to was a legitimate way to handle the data and it had been published in a peer reviewed journal and was an accepted method. People use such tricks all the time in handling all sorts of data. Re-normalising data is a trick in that sense – and a commonplace in all data handling settings.
We are in a scenario where the only prudent course is to apply the precautionary principle. The cost to our children and grandchildren if we do nothing and AGW is true will be beyond imagination. If we do move to lower carbon economies then we create whole new industries and technologies – and an engine for growth. It will require money to be invested and there will be change but at worst we leave a future that is sustainable and fit for our grandchildren.
.-= Bunc´s last blog ..Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising Review =-.
The “trick” was to “normalize” tree ring data to instrument temperature data because modern tree ring temperature data showed a declining trend while instrument data, at the time, was rising. This is not something new. The same kind of “trick” was used to “erase” the Medieval Warm Period from proxy date used to support theories of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Applying the precautionary principle for an unproven and, now, partially discredited hypothesis will beggar our children and grandchildren and will do little or nothing to impact climate. If we’re going to spend money for a better future, let’s spend it on those things that work.
Creating new technologies and industries that work without massive subsidies is a good start. Unfortunately, the new low carbon industries all too often require subsidies. If the subsidies are removed, they will collapse because market forces will not support them.
Humans often do things for the best of intentions — and reap unintended consequences. The unintended consequences of actions on climate change may well be the impoverishment of hundreds of millions of people with no significant impact on the climate.
You do realise that there is no evidence of a hemisphere wide Medieval Warm Period I suppose – the evidence is that it was largely localised to Europe – unlike modern temp trends. By the way we have just had it confirmed that in the UK we have had one of the mildest and wettest Novembers on record. Entirely in line with predictions – despite the fact that we are currently around solar minima.
The intended consequence of action on climate change will be an improvement in the quality of life for most people on the planet. A move to renewables will in the longer term ensure that people are not in hock to rising fuel prices and hostile countries.
It will mean more access for poor people to energy sources. It will mean that we can use our oil based feedstocks for much longer. It will mean I may be able to make my own electricity one day and sell any surplus. The Chinese aren’t stupid they see whats coming and the cost of doing nothing.
The people against climate change action are often the rich fat I’m-ok-jacks of this world who care nothing about anyone but themselves. Having an open mind about the science is good but closing your mind to the possibility that the general scientific consensus may be right is foolish.
If action is taken sensibly and sooner rather than later then any loss of one type of job will be made up by developments in other areas.
People have a natural and understandable tendency to avoid action until they have to, but the momentum of AGW is such that we must not wait until it is fully upon us. It’s entirely prudent to act sooner rather than later.
This is the type of problem where the sooner you act then the less extreme the action needs to be. Just think – say you are wrong and we wait say ten years and then discover that fact. Think of the consequences in that scenario.
.-= Bunc´s last blog ..Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising Review =-.
The alarmists would have us believe that the Medieval Warm Period didn’t exist, but data from 752 individual scientist in 442 separate research institutions in 41 different countries around the world say otherwise.
Also, I understand that the UK Met Office will be reexamining all of their temperature records and analysis — temperature records for the last 150 years. I hear it’s supposed to be 3 year project to reevaluate this information upon which the so-called consensus is based.
Even the most complete temperature dataset in the world, the multi-decade instrument records of the United States, has inherent errors in it of a magnitude equal to half the presumed temperature rise of the last 150 years.
Among the sciences, climate science is really hardly past the toddler stage. I certainly don’t believe it’s to the point that rational policy should be based on it.
Besides all of that, have you looked at the sun lately? It’s still in the longest solar minimum in over a hundred years. The original predictions for the beginning of Solar cycle 24 keep getting pushed back — we were supposed to be well into it by now — and reduced in magnitude. The peak in cycle 24 is now about 65% of what was predicted in April 2007. The December updated prediction should be out sometime this week.
I kind of wish global warming were true as I suspect the current ten year lack of warming will turn into twenty years or more of cooling, as some indicators predict.
I guess, though, that we’ll have to agree to disagree.
And you don’t find it strange and counter intuitive – given the alleged primacy of solar influence over AGW at present- that while in the deepest solar minimum what we are observing is at best some flattening out of the observed global warming trend?
There are numerous cycles that influence our climate up and down over different time periods – I know of no one that denies that.
I am pleased to hear that the MET Office are reviewing their own data but I suspect that you will be dissapointed with the outcome.
The instrument record does indeed have error margins but when intruments and measurements from a wide variety of sources are pretty much all pointing in the same direction over a period of time then clearly that’s telling you something. That’s of course not even taking account of the fact that people are observing the effects of global warming with their own eyes. very significant seasonal effects are already apparent.
.-= Bunc´s last blog ..Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising Review =-.
I meant to add – I was not denying a medieval warm period but you will find if you read about it in detail that it the evidence points to it being a more localised warming.
.-= Bunc´s last blog ..Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising Review =-.
I’ve spent a significant amount of time reading the literature from books and blogs to media to scientific papers on both sides.
The one thing that always signals to me that a source is questionable is when the result is based on the results of a computer model. The climate models are excessively tweaked to replicate historical conditions and they make significant assumptions on climate feedbacks that are unproven and very likely wrong. Virtually all of the climate models missed the temperature trends of the last ten years to the point that the actual temperature is low and outside of one standard deviation of what was expected.
I also don’t like material that is based largely on “should,” “could,” and “might,” which is all too true of most of the dire Chicken Little predictions in the media.
I started this study because, to me, the basic premise of climate change — that it’s due to the change in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere — just doesn’t match what I knew about carbon dioxide. When I learned more of the physics of carbon dioxide absorption of infrared radiation, the premise made even less sense to me.
Sure. Over the last 150 years or so, CO2 concentration has been rising and the general trend of global temperature appears to be that it is rising, too. However, correlation does not prove causation.
There is no scientific proof that continued rise in global CO2 will result in continued rise in global temperature.
Climate models say that it is too so.
So what?
Climate models are not proof — especially climate models whose data and programming is kept hidden from the rest of the scientific community.
I will not deny that the earth has warmed. I will not deny that some fraction of that MAY be due to man. However, I do not want to waste any more money on an unproven hypothesis that is probably wrong. Let’s find the real cause or causes and address them, if feasible.
I also do not deny that we should move to renewable and sustainable energy sources. I just want it to be fore the right reason and I want it to be something that works.
By the way, I’m winding down my reading and interest in the topic. I am fully satisfied that my doubt on the topic is justified. My first step in that direction is that I’ve stopped my Google alert on the phrase “climate change.” It has cut down on my Google Reader traffic significantly.
from CO2 Science Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 771 individual scientists from 458 separate research institutions in 42 different countries … and counting! This issue’s Medieval Warm Period Record of the Week comes from Makassar Strait, Sulawesi Margin, Indo-Pacific Warm Pool. To access the entire Medieval Warm Period Project’s database, click here.
I am not trying to change your mind and, unless you can show me the proof that additional CO2 will result in higher global temperatures, you are not going to change mine. Australia’s Minister for Climate Change, Senator Penny Wong, was not able to produce such proof when requested by
Comments on this entry are closed.