CRU head, Phil Jones, says he will step aside as an independent review of the thousands of emails and documents recently hacked and published online for the world to see, are reveiwed.
Jones is considered the chief Climate czar. His data is fed to the U.N.’s IPCC (the world climate change panel known as the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change) and they took it as gospel – ignoring the data of thousands of dissenters, because Jones’ organization, the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in Britain has been allowed to thwart any discussion of differing opinions. Of the four sets of global temperature data used by the IPCC, those devised by Phil Jones have been considered the most important, and the CRU, which employs him, runs the global warming gig for the world.
Can you imagine what would happen to Al Gore’s bank account if there were no records to support global warming? Can you imagine Phil Jones’ situation sans the $22 million he has received in recent years to support this claim of global warming? Can you imagine the U.N.’s goal to control the world through global warming doom and gloom, if there were no global warming? Well, there is no global warming, and for anyone sitting on the fence – for those not really sure of the truth, we know it now – right from the emails of those at the top of the global warming pyramid.
So Jones will now temporarily step aside as someone, hopefully an unbiased-someone, looks over the emails and documents, some of which clearly show that Jones and his buddies were adjusting older temperatures downward and more recent temps upward, withholding basic data, advising other scientists to avoid supplying information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and to actually delete data harmful to the global warming/climate change goal.
…the highly disturbing series of
emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been
discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data
to outsiders under freedom of information laws.
They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background
data on which their findings and temperature records were based.
This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones’s refusal to
release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential
temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that
much of the data from all over the world had simply got “lost”.
Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to
delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a
freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.
But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to
release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to
hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how
they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous
computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to
lower past temperatures and to “adjust” recent temperatures
upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This
comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in
the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element
of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with
his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to
revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light
from Australia and New Zealand.
In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to
compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it
was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been
played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which
shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was
carried out under the influence of the CRU.
So much for “peer reviewed” science!
From NationalReviewOnline’s Patrick J. Michaels, whose column is aptly titled “the Dog Ate Global Warming:
Putting together such a record isn’t at all easy. Weather stations
weren’t really designed to monitor global climate. Long-standing ones
were usually established at points of commerce, which tend to grow into
cities that induce spurious warming trends in their records. Trees grow
up around thermometers and lower the afternoon temperature. Further, as
documented by the University of Colorado’s Roger Pielke Sr., many of
the stations themselves are placed in locations, such as in parking
lots or near heat vents, where artificially high temperatures are bound
to be recorded.
So the weather data that go into the historical
climate records that are required to verify models of global warming
aren’t the original records at all. Jones and Wigley, however, weren’t
specific about what was done to which station in order to produce their
record, which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/–
0.2°C in the 20th century.
Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes,
an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/–” came from, so he
politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data.
Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work
was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make
the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something
wrong with it?”
Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in
its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication
is to “try and find something wrong.” The ultimate objective of science
is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.
story changed. In June 2009, Georgia Tech’s Peter Webster told Canadian
researcher Stephen McIntyre that he had requested raw data, and Jones
freely gave it to him. So McIntyre promptly filed a Freedom of Information Act
request for the same data. Despite having been invited by the National
Academy of Sciences to present his analyses of millennial temperatures,
McIntyre was told that he couldn’t have the data because he wasn’t an
“academic.” So his colleague Ross McKitrick, an economist at the
University of Guelph, asked for the data. He was turned down, too.
There’s more to Patrick Michaels article. Read how the dog ate global warming here.
Can we really believe that the scientific community will step up and critically and honestly admit to the world what has been happening in this scam to grab trillions of dollars of the world’s wealth, most of it coming from the U.S. I doubt it. The Democrat socialists have placed all of their credibility in the domination of the climate change argument, which they say is already settled science. Well, ClimateGate and Phil Jones’ own words, shows it is not so settled – not so scientific…not so credible.
Related and Background:
Ocean Rise; Sea Levels Rise Never Began: Scientists Withdraw Claims of Sea Levels Rising