Climategate may be about to go nuclear. So far, the lame excuse of the alarmist community was that Climategate’s purloined e-mails may have shown attempts to stifle heterodox thinking and bully professional journals, but the data that allegedly proves global warming was not in any way compromised. If the Guardian’s reporting is right, this defense may soon be inoperative. From the story:
Phil Jones, the beleaguered British climate scientist at the centre of the leaked emails controversy, is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in key temperature data on which some of his work was based. A Guardian investigation of thousands of emails and documents apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia’s climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that documents relating to them could not be produced. Jones and a collaborator have been accused by a climate change sceptic and researcher of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming – a hotly contested issue. Today the Guardian reveals how Jones withheld the information requested under freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Jones’s collaborator, Wei-Chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had “screwed up”.
The revelations on the inadequacies of the 1990 paper do not undermine the case that humans are causing climate change, and other studies have produced similar findings. But they do call into question the probity of some climate change science.
That last assertion is open to question–especially given the parallel scandals of false claims regarding Himalayan glacier melting, etc. In any event, the “minor errors,” as they are being called are beginning to add up, and as a result, the credibility of the entire global warming case is really under a cloud. The time has long since past for an open and independent investigation by a Congressional and international committees with subpoena power and the capacity to take testimony under oath.
It also turns out a lot of information was improperly being held close to the scientists’ vests:
The revelations come at a torrid time for climate science, with the IPPC suffering heavy criticism for its use of information that had not been rigorously checked – in particular a false claim that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 – and UEA having been criticised last week by the deputy information commissioner for refusing valid requests for data under the Freedom of Information Act. The Guardian has learned that of 105 freedom of information requests to the university concerning the climatic research unit (CRU), which Jones headed up to the end of December, only 10 had been released in full.
The Times of London, the Telegraph, and the Guardian are doing real journalism on the ongoing science scandals involving global warming. That raises an important question: Where are the American media?
February 1st, 2010 | 10:53 pm
Common sense tells you that man did not cause Global warming, the ice age ended before man even existed. So, how did we have anything to do with it. Let’s take air samples in the atmosphere and end this far left liberal agenda once and for all.
February 2nd, 2010 | 12:51 am
yes i agree with Mr Eric Thats a Common sense tells you that man did not cause Global warming, the ice age ended before man even existed. So, how did we have anything to do with it
February 2nd, 2010 | 12:52 am
yaa i agree with your posting
February 2nd, 2010 | 10:34 am
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by CO2HOG: SHS Global Warming Hysteria: Climategate May Show the Hiding of Defective Data http://bit.ly/d7K5TN #tcot…
February 2nd, 2010 | 10:45 am
Once again a British newspaper levels claims but does not substantiate them. After a little digging, I found that the person accusing the scientists of fraud is a former banker, Douglas J. Keenan, (address listed as The Limehouse Cut, London). Even if we assume that the self-promoting and nutty Keenan’s charges of data fabrication are true (he offers no evidence of fabrication only claims that some related 20 yr old data are unavailable, and that some climate scientists also think he is nutty) it does not impact the overwhelming evidence that the planet is warming.
The same day, the same newspaper author, Fred Pearce, in the same newspaper, published this:
“How the ‘Climategate’ Scandal is Bogus and Based on Climate Sceptics’ Lies: Claims based on email soundbites are demonstrably false – there is manifestly no evidence of clandestine data manipulation”
where he systematically deconstructs the arguments of the skeptics. He concluded: “Almost all the media and political discussion about the hacked climate emails has been based on brief soundbites publicised by professional sceptics and their blogs.” He further pointed out specific falsehoods advanced by Senator Jim Inhofe and former half-term Governor Sarah Palin.
Here’s the deal. Mr. Pearce, a science writer, reported on the accusations against two climate scientists (the Guardian headline was misleading and was not supported by the headline) and you (and I assume the right-wing blogosphere) report this. In a companion piece, the same writer, the same day, reported that the ‘Climategate’ scandal is based on lies and exaggerations by professional skeptics (fame and some fortune) and politically motivated types and from the right-wing noise machine we hear? Crickets chirping.
How was it you were able to find the article on purported data fabrication but not the article on the lies of the skeptics? Bias?
Why would you only report evidence supporting your position?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:50 am
The accusation of fraud is not what I wrote about. I wrote that bad data had been hidden. According to this report, that seems incontrovertible. Whether it rises to the level of “fraud,” is worth knowing. What amazes me about the alarmists is that they are like people in a building that is cracking and bucking on its way to collapse. The answer isn’t to keep being “deniers” (ha!), but to get a building inspector. The credibility of global warming–and alas, of science itself–is badly damaged. Only a fresh look has any chance of restoring the people’s faith. Copenhagen isn’t even being followed. Cap and Trade is dead. If AGW really is the problem you fear, you would support doing whatever it takes to restore trust. But if it is just politics, well, then the irrelevant references to Palin as a “half term governor” makes sense. But it isn’t persuasive.
February 2nd, 2010 | 7:06 pm
Let’s be clear. The scientific underpinnings of climate change are not being questioned other than as a political tool. Thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles support that the earth is warming (much like several epidemiology studies cast significant doubt on the link between vaccines and autism). The temperature records, snow cover, permafrost, glacier melt, arctic ice melt, ice sheet melt, ocean levels, flora and fauna range and migration patterns all point to this conclusion. Refuting this is a careless statement about Himalayan glacier melt in the IPCC report and an unsubstantiated accusation of data fabrication by a former banker concerning a 1990 paper about Chinese temperature stations.
Solid research, not the unscientific criticism of skeptics, refuted the link between vaccines and autism. Where is the research refuting climate change?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 2nd, 2010 at 7:16 pm
Jeffrey. We now know that the peer review process has been compromised. We need to recheck the data and have all books opened. No. Longer. Credible.
February 2nd, 2010 | 8:28 pm
At http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review (“Climate change emails between scientists reveal flaws in peer review”), a jump in subject to your main specialty: “Yesterday it emerged that 14 leading researchers in a different field [different than "climate change"] – stem cell research – have written an open letter to journal editors to highlight their dissatisfaction with the process. They allege that a small scientific clique is using peer review to block papers from other researchers.”
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 2nd, 2010 at 8:31 pm
I saw that Charles. Thought about posting about it, but I don’t want to become Johnny One Note. Thanks.
February 3rd, 2010 | 12:10 am
Jeffery, you ever take a peek at those websites we cited?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact