Anorak News | Climate Gate: Politicians Investigate CRU’s Emails And The BBC Sat On The Story

Climate Gate: Politicians Investigate CRU’s Emails And The BBC Sat On The Story

by | 24th, November 2009

global-warming-heresy-cruFILES hacked from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) see them here – seem to indicate an Orwellian pact between scientists to settle the scientific debate on man-made global warming.

The Washington Post sees “an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies”. Says Al Gorean George Monibot:

It’s no use pretending this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Monibot has seen the eviedence and reached a conclusions.

The emails are long and dull in the main, but the Post has picked through them

In one e-mail, the center’s director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University’s Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow–even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” Mann writes. . . .

Mann, who directs Penn State’s Earth System Science Center, said the e-mails reflected the sort of “vigorous debate” researchers engage in before reaching scientific conclusions. “We shouldn’t expect the sort of refined statements that scientists make when they’re speaking in public,” he said.

James Taranto opines:

This is downright Orwellian. What the Post describes is not a vigorous debate but an attempt to suppress debate–to politicize the process of scientific inquiry so that it yields a predetermined result. This does not, in itself, prove the global warmists wrong. But it raises a glaring question: If they have the facts on their side, why do they need to resort to tactics of suppression and intimidation?

The WSJ investigates the emails:

In them, scientists appear to urge each other to present a “unified” view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the “common cause”; to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to “hide the decline” of temperature in certain inconvenient data.

It’s all pretty disasterous for the climate warmists. But the Guardian’s Caroline Davies and Suzanne Goldenberg say that it’s all ok. The argument has been won:

In the political world, the email affair has elicited no comment and came as it was announced that 65 national leaders had so far pledged to attend the Copenhagen talks, almost a third of the total.


Congressional Republicans have started investigating climate scientists whose hacked emails suggest they tried to squelch dissenting views about global warming.

Global warming – the big media scare story is coming unravelled. But can it be stopped? This on the BBC:

“Three UK groups studying climate change have issued an unprecedented statement about the dangers of failing to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. The Royal Society, Met Office, and Natural Environment Research Council say the science underpinning climate change is more alarming than ever. They say the 2007 UK floods, 2003 heatwave in Europe and recent droughts were consistent with emerging patterns. Their comments came ahead of crunch UN climate talks in Copenhagen next month.”

The BBC presents the facts to the people. Right? Well, get this from BBC weatherman Paul Hudson who knew about the CRU emails a while back but never reported on them. He writes on November 23:

I was forwarded the chain of e-mails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the worlds leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article ‘whatever happened to global warming’. The e-mails released on the internet as a result of CRU being hacked into are identical to the ones I was forwarded and read at the time and so, as far as l can see, they are authentic.

And then you can let the people know that there is another side to the global warming science – maybe...

Posted: 24th, November 2009 | In: Reviews Comment (1) | TrackBack | Permalink