CRU Emails: Climatologist Involved Speaks Out

The title and what he writes seems to conflict.

This is hugh. And series.

The scientist speaking is one of *them*.

You know darn well he isn't alone. By its nature science implies integrity. A scientist that suppresses or distorts the truth experiences lots of internal conflict.

Look for more of them to speak out. This, more than the MSM even, will bring down the house of cards.

Trying to save his job?

By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication.

>> The title and what he writes seems to conflict.

Title probably should be: “Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process”

The title and what he writes seems to conflict.

Well, there's this subheading:

Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process

Followed by this:

Short answer: because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.

The rest is fairly bland, but I'd still rate it as "speaking out," (even though I think the IPCC process itself is corrupt).

Former Senator and Vice President Al Gore seen here en-route back to prison after a federal appeals court refused to review his 20 year sentence for his lead role as spokesperson in the “Climategate” fraud conspiracy.

I messed up, for some reason I was thinking Mann was a skeptic, but Mann is the author of the imfamous hockey stick chart.

Here is his actual statement from the link in his page:

“Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process

Eduardo Zorita, November 2009

Short answer: because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.

A longer answer: My voice is not very important. I belong to the climate-research infantry, publishing a few papers per year, reviewing a few manuscript per year and participating in a few research projects. I do not form part of important committees, nor I pursue a public awareness of my activities. My very minor task in the public arena was to participate as a contributing author in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.

By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication. My area of research happens to be the climate of the past millennia, where I think I am appreciated by other climate-research ‘soldiers’. And it happens that some of my mail exchange with Keith Briffa and Timothy Osborn can be found in the CRU-files made public recently on the internet.

To the question of legality or ethicalness of reading those files I will write a couple of words later.

I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files. They depict a realistic, I would say even harmless, picture of what the real research in the area of the climate of the past millennium has been in the last years. The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.

These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of. But I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere -and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations,even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the ‘politically correct picture’. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the ‘pleasure’ to experience all this in my area of research.

I thank explicitely Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn for their work in the formulation of one Chapter of the IPCC report. As it destills from these emails, they withstood the evident pressure of other IPCC authors, not experts in this area of research, to convey a distorted picture of our knowledge of the hockey-stick graph.

Is legal or ethical to read the CRU files? I am not a layer. It seems that if the files had been hacked this would constitute an illegal act. If they have been leaked it could be a whistle blower action protected by law. I think it is not unethical to read them. Once published, I feel myself entitled to read how some researchers tried to influence reviewers to scupper the publication of our work on the ‘hockey stick graph’ or to read how some IPCC authors tried to exclude this work from the IPCC Report on very dubious reasons. Also, these mails do not contain any personal information at all. They are an account of many dull daily activities of typical climatologists, together with a realistic account of very troubling professional behavior.”

************************************************************

Zorita appears as he himself describes a “soldier” in the “Climate Research Infantry”.

His listing as a member of the “Advisory Board of Institut Català de Ciències del Clima” shows that link to be incredible to me. It is a blatant political operative link. I am shaking my head as I look at it. It has every marking of post-Soviet funded propaganda.

This is an important testimony. This man and others like him need to be brought before Congress to testify.

The Great Global Warming Swindle has in one of its segments a commentator that points out that many of the leaders of “Warming” protests who were observed years ago, were known operatives of the huge Soviet propaganda ministry.

The commentator showed that the disarray and disorganization of the vast Soviet propaganda organization of thousands and thousands of leftwing journalists, activists and infiltrators, that this media army was regrouped after the collapse of the USSR and directed to form an organization to control industry and global environmental policy via Global Warming.

Zorita is a witness to this conspiracy. He is a paid for “foot-soldier”.

Looking at Zorita’s background, or lack of it, I am still amazed at how such “scientists” were enlisted to form a core of propaganda that were pawned off as IPCC credible science.

Only now he comes forward when the cover is blown.

How many more “Zoritas” are out there? Looking at the rest of the Paleoclimate staff provides s sampling of a leftist cabal of characters that are in it because why? Because it pays and it sounds good? These persons appear to have no moral compass! They need to eat and anything that will keep their bellies full is what they will bow to.

Congress should subpoena all such “foot-soldiers” and start asking what they observed, when and why they did not report scientific misconduct.

Every scientist, or person who is referred to as a “scientist”, has a duty to report scientific misconduct.

In my own PhD work, I was required to attend summer lectures on Scientific Ethics, Duties and Conduct. I actually found them to be interesting and revealing as the lecturers discussed cases where scientists decided to fabricate data and results for the purpose of getting published and advancing their careers.

When I was very young, I spent a brief time as a student in Paris. There I met at a party a fairly bright young man that had been dirt poor, but who had been picked up and subsidized by the Communist Party. He was their “foot-soldier” for union organizing activities. They provided him a small apartment and a stipend. Prior to his being supported by them, he had no belief in communism, but now that he had a roof over his head and something to eat, he was all for it.

That’s human nature. Feed me and I will be your toadie.

Base on my life experience, I believe the Left is well-funded and positioned to siphon tax money for “scientific purposes” and directs those funds to such organizations such as Zorita’s GKSS Reserach Center. And such persons as Zorita who have their hands out for funding as they are not tenured faculty, such persons will leech off such funds and drive research to require more funds.

It’s not complicated. It’s all about following the money.

And following the money should be easy. There are research grant administrators in the research centers with counterparts in government. These mid-level funding bureacrats can be called to testify, and then the picture can be assembled.

The problem is that now the Left which I believe is completely behind this warming scam, they have a friend and ally in our White House, and they also have control of many of our major broadcast and print media distributors.

The environazis have admitted, in past moments of indiscretion, their true intentions.

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” Paul Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich, “Population, Resources, Environment” (W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1970, 323) This quote has also been attributed to John Holdren, Erlich’s co-author, who now works with Obama in the White House.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2395062/posts