Home > Climate Change > >The greatest scientific scandal since Piltdown Man will have no impact

>The greatest scientific scandal since Piltdown Man will have no impact

>The information provided yesterday by the hacking of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit is the greatest scientific scandal since Piltdown Man.

Here we have a large number of high profile, interconnected scientists who are actively conspiring to fabricate scientific results that show alarming 20th century warming and reduced warming during the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods.

A number of people are going through the emails including: Andrew Bolt, Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts and Lucia at The Blackboard so I don’t need to.

This will have no impact – nil, nada, none, zero, zip – on the whole global warming/climate change movement.

The problem is that the mainstream media is too invested in advocating for climate change to even consider undertaking an investigation into the information provided by the hack.

By the end of next week this will all have died down. People like Steve McIntyre might find some data that shows results have been fabricated but he’s done that before and the media has ignored him, which they’ll do again this time.

If the mainstream media does not investigate a situation is which there has been conspiracy, fraud, obstruction of justice, falsification of data, suppression and tampering with evidence and public corruption (as Robert M pointed out at WUWT) then it will be yet another example of the slow decline of Western civilisation.

Here’s an email that I haven’t seen elsewhere, has an Australian reference:

From: “Thomas.R.Karl” To: Phil Jones Subject: Re: FW: retraction request Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:21:57 -0400 Cc: Wei-Chyung Wang

Thanks Phil,

We R now responding to a former TV weather forecaster who has got press, He has a web site
of 40 of the USHCN stations showing less than ideal exposure. He claims he can show urban biases and exposure biases.

We are writing a response for our Public Affairs. Not sure how it will play out.

Regards, TOm

Phil Jones said the following on 6/19/2007 4:22 AM:

Wei-Chyung and Tom,

The Climate Audit web site has a new thread on the Jones et al. (1990) paper, with lots of quotes from Keenan. So they may not be going to submit something to Albany. Well may be?!?

Just agreed to review a paper by Ren et al. for JGR. This refers to a paper on urbanization effects in China, which may be in press in J. Climate. I say ‘may be’ as Ren isn’t that clear about this in the text, references and responses to earlier reviews. Have requested JGR get a copy a copy of this in order to do the review.

In the meantime attaching this paper by Ren et al. on urbanization at two sites in China.

Nothing much else to say except:

1. Think I’ve managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit.
2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. He said they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are threads on it about Australian sites.
3. CA is in dispute with IPCC (Susan Solomon and Martin Manning) about the availability of the responses to reviewer’s at the various stages of the AR4 drafts. They are most interested here re Ch 6 on paleo.




UPDATE: Bishop Hill has a terrific summary going…

(Nothing Follows)

Categories: Climate Change
  1. November 21, 2009 at 10:41 pm

    >Why is it that I just feel like laughing right now?For a long time, the much vilified Global Warming Deniers have been asking that true scientific methodology be applied. And that means being able to duplicate results more than once. Every time this was mentioned in international meetings, those who requested it were shouted down. Now we see egregious and intentional collusion to commit what can only be referred to as fraud. And why? To get grants, to insure jobs, to gain tenure. What a seamy sideshow this circus has become.

  2. November 22, 2009 at 1:30 am

    >Where's Fudgie?I want to gloat. Very much so.I'm sure you are reading, Fudge! I dare you to comment. Double dare you!

  3. November 23, 2009 at 6:38 pm

    >JackI agree that neither Dear Leader nor Gordon Brown are going to appear on tv this week (or next) finally conceding that it's all been a hoax.There will be no resolutions from the Australian Parliament with that same message either.However, real scientists pay attention. Even those scientists that are part of the uber librul faculties of Arts and Sciences will notice. They may fervently believe in the AGW orthodoxy…because all the cool people do…., but they will be chagrined by the charade because they know that science isn't supposed to work this way.They will slowly fall off the wagon as they come to conclude that maybe the science isn't really all that well developed after all. At a minimum, it seems to me, they'll quietly insist that folks back off and start over in a much more transparent manner.One of the emails discussed how this appears to real scientists when raw data and code is concealed from review. And it gives the appearance that something is being concealed. The writer thought that Keith (Briffa) wasn't up to the task of dealing with the issue associated with the concealment of his own data for over a decade. This will just throw gas on that particular fire.I'm not Pollyanna-ish enough to expect mass epiphanies. But drip by drip, this fraud is being exposed and the mortar and brick of the Church of the Global Warmingists is disintegrating out from under them.Color me an eternal optimist.–Krumhorn

  4. November 23, 2009 at 6:59 pm

    >JackHere is an email that illustrates my point. And this is just from someone who bothered to write.–Krumhorn******* Dear Professor Briffa, my apologies for contacting you directly, particularly since I hear that you are unwell. However the recent release of tree ring data by CRU has prompted much discussion and indeed disquiet about the methodology and conclusions of a number of key papers by you and co-workers. As an environmental plant physiologist, I have followed the long debate starting with Mann et al (1998) and through to Kaufman et al (2009). As time has progressed I have found myself more concerned with the whole scientific basis of dendroclimatology. In particular; 1) The appropriateness of the statistical analyses employed 2) The reliance on the same small datasets in these multiple studies 3) The concept of "teleconnection" by which certain trees respond to the "Global Temperature Field", rather than local climate 4) The assumption that tree ring width and density are related to temperature in a linear manner. Whilst I would not describe myself as an expert statistician, I do use inferential statistics routinely for both research and teaching and find difficulty in understanding the statistical rationale in these papers. As a plant physiologist I can say without hesitation that points 3 and 4 do not agree with the accepted science. There is a saying that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Given the scientific, political and economic importance of these papers, further detailed explanation is urgently required. Yours sincerely, Dr. Don Keiller.

  5. November 23, 2009 at 8:59 pm

    >Krum,I reckon the best of the emails was the one from Briffa going on about Mann being, basically, a prat.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: