Posted on 11/24/2009 9:09:51 PM PST by 4horses+amule
The University of East Anglia has released statements from Prof Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research, Prof Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit, and from CRU.
Statement from Professor Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research
The publication of a selection of the emails and data stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has led to some questioning of the climate science research published by CRU and others. There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation. CRU’s peer-reviewed publications are consistent with, and have contributed to, the overwhelming scientific consensus that the climate is being strongly influenced by human activity. The interactions of the atmosphere, oceans, land, and ice mean that the strongly-increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere do not produce a uniform year-on-year increase in global temperature. On time-scales of 5-10 years, however, there is a broad scientific consensus that the Earth will continue to warm, with attendant changes in the climate, for the foreseeable future. It is important, for all countries, that this warming is slowed down, through substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to reduce the most dangerous impacts of climate change. Respected international research groups, using other data sets, have come to the same conclusion.
The University of East Anglia and CRU are committed to scientific integrity, open debate and enhancing understanding. ...The publication of a selection of stolen data is the latest example of a sustained and, in some instances, a vexatious campaign which may have been designed to distract from reasoned debate...
(Excerpt) Read more at uea.ac.uk ...
spin spin spin ... i bet they get away with it.
We all knew they had to respond with bullshit, because it’s only bullshit they have to respond with.
Simple logic eh.
I hope the whistleblowers/hackers follow the O’Keefe/Giles method and release emails from the top dogs, including meeting minutes, now that they’ve denied that any of that has happened.
“It’s an isolated incident.”
No they won’t get away with it. This is one of the media cheerleaders in the UK for man made global warming. He is calling for the head of this unit to be fired.
“......scientific integrity, open debate and enhancing understanding....” of course, those nasty emails indicate otherwise but don’t let that stand in the way of spinning those lies further.
These fraudsters have no credibility or scientific integrity. No one will ever respect or trust them, their opinions, views, analyses or judgements ever again. They shouild resign and retire. For them, it’s GAME OVER.
Blah blah blah....
The “global warming” scam has been exposed. These crooked “climate scientists” are about to see their taxpayer-funded gravy train screech to a halt. These assclowns can issue all the lame excuses and lies they want - - only a complete buffoon would believe a word they say now.
This is every bit like the lid being blown off of ACORN... except for the funky costuming in the videos...I’m sorry professor, but any semblance of scientific objectivity has been shattered.
CRU CYA Ping.
I would add that the British press is taking this seriously:
“Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? “
Interesting, since they won't publicly release their data or formulas...
In the second one in particular, read the following emails:
1228330629.txt seems like it has some stuff about FOIA and wanting to quit if the management at Lawrence Livermore doesn't back him up on NOT responding to inquiries for raw data and methods to back up his papers. (!!)
1228412429.txt looks like it is talking about persuading the managment not to force one to abide by FOI requests; and also deleting emails (just in time) which likely *would* have been subject to such a request.
1254258663.txt explicitly snarks about The Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and their ilk; and compares them unfavorably to "the prestige press". Also possible reference McIntyre being shut out of real journals, then derided as a kook because he's not getting published...
1254259645.txt continues in this vein.
Hey dipsh*ts.
Release the RAW data, and the RAW computer codes used to generate the plots and estimates in your published papers.
Then we can see if they are *truly* reproducible or if you fudged them, or out-and-out lied.
Of particular interest are the data sets related to Mike's "tricks" in Nature.
Oh, and the ones related to the Yamal tree-rings; and the funding for that, including Briffa's June 5 email which is missing.
Oh, and the ones relating to trying to massage away the Medieval Warm period.
Oh, and the ones related to the infamous hockey stick.
Oh, and the ones related to your proofs mentioned in the letter of Dec.4, 2008. (60 corrections!)
Oh, and the ones related to 1196795844.txt "hi, >>>>for moment please do not distribute or discuss. >>>>trying to get a sense of whether singer / christy can get any traction >>>>with this at all. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>*_ ANDREW C. REVKIN >>>>_*"
Oh, and the ones related to the following quote which appears to be from an honest scientist, Dr. Fred Singer:
"Reliability of the IPCC's reports: I understand that the IPCC's 2007 draft does not contain an apology for the defective "hockey-stick" graph, which the US National Academy of Sciences has described as having "a validation skill not significantly different from zero". In plain English, this means the graph was rubbish. It is difficult to have confidence in a body which, after its principal conclusion is demonstrated in the peer-reviewed, scientific literature and in numerous independent reports as having been useless, fails to make the appropriate withdrawal and apology. Worse, the UN continues to use the defective graph. This failure of basic academic honesty on the IPCC's part was the main reason why I began my investigation of the supposed climate-change "consensus".The supposed scientific "consensus": Your correspondent seems unaware of the letter written by 61 Canadian and other scientists in climate and related fields to the Canadian Prime Minister. At the end of the attached commentary on Al Gore's recent attempt to rebut my articles on climate change in the Sunday Telegraph, beneath the references, I have appended the full text of the letter and the names, qualifications and then-current affiliations of all 61 scientists. Al gore and others tend to lean rather more heavily than is wise upon a single, rather bad one-page essay in Science for their contention that there is a scientific consensus to the effect that most of the warming in the past half-century was anthropogenic. The essay was by Oreskes (2004), who said that she had analyzed 928 abstracts mentioning "climate change" published in peer-reviewed journals on the Thomson ISI database between 1993 and 2003, and that none of the 928 had expressed dissent from the "consensus". Dr. Benny Peiser of Liverpool John Moores University subsequently made a more careful enquiry. Science had been compelled to publish an erratum to the effect that the search term used by Oreskes had not been the neutral "climate change" - which returned some 12,000 articles, but the more loaded "global climate change", which returned 1,117 articles. Of these, Dr. Peiser found that only 1% had explicitly endorsed the "consensus" as defined by Oreskes"; that almost three times as many had explicitly expressed doubt or outright disagreement; and that less than one-third had expressed explicit or implicit agreement with the "consensus". He wrote a paper for Science pointing out these serious defects, which pointed to a conclusion diametrically opposite to that of Oreskes. Science at first asked him to shorten his paper, and then said that, because conclusions like his had been widely reported on the internet, his paper would not be published. As far as I can discover, Science has not published any corrigendum to this day, providing further confirmation of what I have long suspected: that the leading peer-reviewed journals, having unwisely taken strongly-political editorial positions on the question of climate change, are no longer objective. "
Oh, and the ones related to 1096382684.txt where the Global-Warming Shills admit:again, takeaway msg is that mann method can only work if past variability same as variability during period used to calibrate your method. so it could be correct, but could be very wrong as well. by the way, von storch doesn't concur with osborn/briffa on the idea that higher past variability would mean there'd likley be high future variability as well (bigger response to ghg forcing). he simply says it's time to toss hockeystick and start again, doesn't take it further than that.
How's that for starters?
They should be doing jail time especially their contacts here in the US.
There was an interesting exchange between Ed Begley Jr. and Stuart Varney earlier.
Ed Begley Jr. Flips Out On Fox: Climate Change Is Real (VIDEO)
Ed Begley Jr. is a big believer in Global Warming and as he went off he was talking up "peer reviewed" publications and "Phd's in Climate Science" as the main authorities that should be relied on. This sounds reasonable on the surface, but it isn't. This is a tactic of a group that controls and corrupts the "peer review" process and the degree programs to promote the theory and get funding, tenure, fame and all the other goodies.
Below is an answer to a question on Yahoo! Answers from a year ago about Climate Scientists(Climatologists). Ed Begley is using a well known tactic.
Just what IS a climatologist? What degree do they have?
Just what IS a climatologist? What degree do they have?
I always hear that GW advocates only take the word of climatologists-- weather forecasters, geologists, etc etc opinions don't count.
Here are the resumes-- and educational background for several "climatologists". http://www.sercc.com/personnel
Until VERY recently universities did not teach "climate" as a stand-alone degree-------- so basically right now most folks claiming to be climatologists actually have degrees in other types of Earth sciences.
* 1 year ago
Additional Details
Edit-- so it appears that the current crop of "climatologists" are no different than physicists, mathematicians, geologists, and meteorologists-- or anyone else having multiple degrees in the physical sciences-- or a career in Earth "sciences".
1 year ago Edit-- then why -- when a group of "Earth" scientists reject GW theory --- are they immediately rejected by the GW advocates?? with the statement, "they are not climatologists". Actually there is no such thing as a Climatologist!
1 year ago
These people are fanatics and have religious zeal about the theory and those scientists who disagree are treated as heretics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
