Skip to comments.Strange case of moving weather posts and a scientist under siege
Posted on 02/02/2010 8:34:02 PM PST by neverdem
In the first part of a major investigation of the so-called 'climategate' emails, one of Britain's top science writers reveals how researchers tried to hide flaws in a key study
It is difficult to imagine a more bizarre academic dispute. Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?
But the argument over the weather stations, and how it affects an important set of data on global warming, has led to accusations of scientific fraud and may yet result in a significant revision of a scientific paper that is still cited by the UN's top climate science body.
It also further calls into question the integrity of the scientist at the centre of the scandal over hacked climate emails, the director of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), Dr Phil Jones. The emails suggest that he helped to cover up flaws in temperature data from China that underpinned his research on the strength of recent global warming.
The Guardian has learned that crucial data obtained by American scientists from Chinese collaborators cannot be verified because documents containing them no longer exist. And what data is available suggests that the findings are fundamentally flawed.
Jones and his Chinese-American colleague Wei-Chyung Wang, of the University at Albany in New York, are being accused of scientific fraud by an independent British researcher over the contents of a research paper back in 1990...
The story has a startling postscript. In 2008, Jones prepared a paper for the Journal of Geophysical Research re-examining temperatures in eastern China. It found that, far from being negligible, the urban heat phenomenon was responsible for 40% of the warming seen in eastern China between 1951 and 2004...
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
We need separation of science and state.
I’m just wondering where the “scientist” is in this piece. All I’m seeing is something about a lying ideologue.
Why are the American media so silent on the burgeoning scandal?
And it just keeps coming out....
Because the American media is largely left-wing. And environmentalism is such a major centerpiece to their entire belief system.
Of course they also ignore the fact that communist/socialist/leftist countries has some of the highest pollution rates in human history. Get a list of the 10 most polluted cities in the world...NONE would be in the USA.
What, a fraudulent Chinese scientist?
How can such a thing be?
Say it isn't so!
LOL!! I can't remember what I had for breakfast last week but this chick can recite temperature data from 41 obscure weather stations!
interesting to see that even al-Guardian can pretend to some real reporting on Climategate, while the vast majority of MSM outlets ignore it
of course, the few leftists who acknowledge that something is funky here still pretend that it has no implications for the soundness of the AGW claims overall -— so al-Guardian is just trying to do some housecleaning for the left
How shameful for our left wing media that even the UK Guardian is on this climategate story, while our MSM ignores it.
And they wonder why they’re going out of business.
The other Chinese researcher wrote a paper just a few months before the date of the Jones et 1990 paper which said that the UHI in China was 0.1C per decade.
When Jones saw how damaging the paper might become, Jones took him under his wing and said “You didn't really mean 0.1C per decade did you? Didn't you mean 0.05C per century. Let's write a paper together and you can join the great global warming community and your academic career will be set.”
Afterward, the IPCC starts quoting the new Jones paper and says there is no UHI, it is only 0.05C per century. This becomes accepted wisdom in the climate community and the UHI-bias in the temperature record is ignored for two decades.
18 years later, Keenan goes after the Chinese researcher for fraud and Jones then writes a CYA paper saying the UHI in China was indeed 0.1C per decade afterall.
The UHI-bias in the temperature record continues to be ignored to this day.
Jones is not a scientist is the traditional sense of searching for the truth. He is a scientist that changes data to match his preconceived theories.