WaPo reports on East Anglia CRU e-mails, global-warming controversy

posted at 12:00 pm on November 22, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

It’s out in the mainstream, in a not-too-bad report from the Washington Post.  Juliet Eilperin focuses exclusively on the controversy and not the content in this report, which is a story in itself (via Instapundit):

While few U.S. politicians bother to question whether humans are changing the world’s climate — nearly three years ago the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded the evidence was unequivocal — public debate persists. And the newly disclosed private exchanges among climate scientists at Britain’s Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies.

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.

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,” Jones replies.

Why is that important?  Global-warming advocates routinely criticize skeptics for not having enough peer-reviewed work rebutting their findings.  If they’re conspiring to block the publication of such research, that undermines their argument and their scientific credibility.  One of their nemeses explains the significance:

Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute who comes under fire in the e-mails, said these same academics repeatedly criticized him for not having published more peer-reviewed papers.

“There’s an egregious problem here, their intimidation of journal editors,” he said. “They’re saying, ‘If you print anything by this group, we won’t send you any papers.’ “

As I wrote when the scandal first arose, the anthropogenic global warming advocates have not been practicing science, if these e-mails prove genuine.  Scientists welcome debate and analysis of data to test hypotheses and theories.  When people start attempting to silence dissent, they cease being scientists and start being high priests of a faith-based system.  This smacks more of Galileo’s treatment than Galileo’s work.  E pur si muove?

Real scientists also don’t delete data when asked to provide transparency to their work, as John Hinderaker points out:

These emails appear to show that, when faced with a legitimate request under Britain’s Freedom of Information Act, these global warming alarmists preferred to delete their emails with one another about the crucially important IPCC report–the main basis for the purported “consensus” in favor of anthropogenic global warming–rather than allow them to come to light. This is one of many instances in the East Anglia documents where the global warming alarmists act like a gang of co-conspirators rather than respectable scientists.

Eilperin’s report is a straightforward account of the controversy.  How long will it be before the media that has hailed AGW scientists and amplified their hysterical findings gives us analysis of the e-mails, such as those being done at Climate Depot and Watt’s Up With That, in order to expose the highly unscientific behavior of AGW hysterics?

Charlie Martin at Pajamas Media gives just such an analysis and concludes:

These emails and the data associated, taken together, raise really important questions about the whole scientific structure of AGW. Is the data really valid? Has the data been effectively peer reviewed and have attempts to falsify been fairly treated? Is CO2-forced AGW really the best hypothesis?Until these questions are answered, the various attempts to “deal with the climate change crisis” have no acceptable scientific basis.

If CRU’s scientists have been conspiring to smear skeptics and keep people in the dark about their processes, the assumption should be that the work is dishonest and could not stand the light of scrutiny.  Based on the e-mails, Hadley and everyone who relied on their work — including the UN and the IPCC — should be forced to start over from scratch … with total and complete transparency.

Update: East Anglia’s CRU is not Hadley.  None of the e-mails exposed came from Hadley’s servers.  Those are two separate institutions.  I’ve corrected this post’s headline and body to reflect that.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

revolution yet? im waiting..just give me the go.

moonbatkiller on November 22, 2009 at 12:01 PM

It’s a non-troversy. Subverting FOI requests and manipulating data is no big deal. Really.

- Charles Johnson

lorien1973 on November 22, 2009 at 12:03 PM

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/i-read-through-160000000-bytes-of.html

The numbers weren’t fudged, they just made the chart deceptive.

tomas on November 22, 2009 at 12:04 PM

The people who hacked the emails are linked to white supremicists, I’m sure. – Charles Johnson

lorien1973 on November 22, 2009 at 12:04 PM

Liberalism is a mental condition. It is never about what it claims to be about. It is always about power. It is always ego driven, never reality or data driven.

Skandia Recluse on November 22, 2009 at 12:05 PM

After this exposure their credibility is nil. We owe the hackers a debt of gratitude.

ray on November 22, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Based on the e-mails, Hadley and everyone who relied on their work — including the UN and the IPCC — should be forced to start over from scratch … with total and complete transparency.

Won’t happen…’Big Global Warming’ has too many vested interests. How will AlGore make the mortgage on his 10 trillion square foot mansion if this were treated as real science?

Just today, this ridiculous article was posted on Slashdot:

http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/11/22/1254238/New-Research-Forecasts-Global-6C-Increase-By-End-of-Century

AUINSC on November 22, 2009 at 12:06 PM

These emails and the data associated, taken together, raise really important questions about the whole scientific structure of AGW

The “whole scientific structure”? Because of these e-mails involving, I believe, essentially 3 or 4 people? That’s really reaching, it seems to me.

Don’t get me wrong: these are really disturbing, especially the coordinated effort (apparently) to silence critics by initimidating editors of scientific journals. That’s unacceptable. And using the “fruit of the poisoned tree” analogy, other organizations that used the work of these people need to re-check matters.

Let’s not engage in our own hysteria.

SteveMG on November 22, 2009 at 12:08 PM

This explains why a certain blog owner (I won’t mention LGF) was adamant that the hacking of the email server was the problem as opposed to what was found.

perroviejo on November 22, 2009 at 12:08 PM


“Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,”

Agree with us or shut your piehole!

Tony737 on November 22, 2009 at 12:08 PM

The numbers were fudged; they were replaced with more favorable instrument reading values so the chart wouldn’t show a declining trend line. Replacing actual values with values from another data set is fudging, and then some.

ray on November 22, 2009 at 12:09 PM

$300 million, $100 million, whatever. They overpaid. I hear Mary Landrieu would have serviced them all for about $50.

Going along this line of reasoning, we are also warned prostitution increases due to climate change. Because of course there was no prostitution in the Philippines (or Louisiana) prior to climate change.

Oh btw: American Gothic

Mr. Joe on November 22, 2009 at 12:09 PM

I ain’t one of them fancy people who knows what “E pur si muove?” means.

BCrago66 on November 22, 2009 at 12:09 PM

Are scientists this stupid to be emailing this kind of crap and not think someone might find out? Algore weeps.

d1carter on November 22, 2009 at 12:10 PM

Just to remind everyone. In the past 6 months Charles Johnson has:

1. Embraced and endorsed Communist & 9/11 Truthers Van Jones & Color of Change.

2. Parroted Media Matters falsehoods about Breitbart concerning the ACORN case.

3. Frantically tried to explain away alarmist fraud exposed by the CRU e-mails & data.

This guy is a hack and possibly worse.

tetriskid on November 22, 2009 at 12:10 PM

What a crap article… as Ace, or someone like Ace, says: when a leak on left occurs all that the MSM cares about is the leaker and the “morals” behind it. A leak on right and AP sends out 11 “fact checkers”.

This could be biggest story of year/decade considering economic ramifications.

That it highlights the folly of those that I call the “5 Minute’s to Midnite Club” a bonus. I’m only bummed that it’s too late and Algore already has his go away and get fat money.

Shivas Irons on November 22, 2009 at 12:10 PM

The “whole scientific structure”? Because of these e-mails involving, I believe, essentially 3 or 4 people? That’s really reaching, it seems to me.

SteveMG on November 22, 2009 at 12:08 PM

Not at all…this is the core group providing the research for the underpinnings of the AGW theory.

AUINSC on November 22, 2009 at 12:10 PM

” ‘And yet it does move!’ — muttered by Galileo after being forced to deny that the earth moves around the sun.”

OK now I get it.

BCrago66 on November 22, 2009 at 12:11 PM

The reason this is important is it this organization and these people who have provided the data used by the IPCC and everyone doing research on climate. It is these same people who lost all the original raw land data and now only have their “normalized” land data; the normalized land data showing the increase from late 70′s to late 90′s that does not correlate with satellite data over the same time period.

ray on November 22, 2009 at 12:11 PM

“E pur si muove?”

It’s Italian for “Nevertheless it does move.”

Reportedly, Galileo whispered this after acknowledging to the Church that the earth never moved and was the center of the universe.

SteveMG on November 22, 2009 at 12:11 PM

This unwarranted attack on the IPCC report is racism, straight up.

cruadin on November 22, 2009 at 12:15 PM

this is the core group providing the research for the underpinnings of the AGW theory

It’s still way to early in this controversy to dismiss the “entire” structure based on these e-mails.

I’ve never believed – I still don’t – that the proponents of AGW are constructing a “hoax.” I believe that they sincerely believe that AGW is occurring and are ignoring – sometimes deliberately – contradictory evidence.

SteveMG on November 22, 2009 at 12:16 PM

Hey Ed, who appointed you to define science.

It’s what a consense of a tiny group of self-appointed selected scientists say it is.

Get a life.

notagool on November 22, 2009 at 12:16 PM

This should put Cap and Trade on the back burner right? NNNaaaaahhhhh! lol I was just kidding. /s

I wonder how p-o’d the people of europe are right now since their economy has been hobbled by cap-and tax for years now and they pay out the nose for energy prices.

Of course we all know cap-and-trade was never really about the enviornment anyway.

Mord on November 22, 2009 at 12:16 PM

Static climate or climate change, I’ll take the change.

fourdeucer on November 22, 2009 at 12:16 PM

The “whole scientific structure”? Because of these e-mails involving, I believe, essentially 3 or 4 people? That’s really reaching, it seems to me.

SteveMG on November 22, 2009 at 12:08 PM

No, it isn’t. Because money, power, and politics are involved, a desired outcome is paramount.

a capella on November 22, 2009 at 12:18 PM

Based on the e-mails, Hadley and everyone who relied on their work — including the UN and the IPCC — should be forced to start over from scratch … with total and complete transparency.

Too many influential people have far too much at stake to allow this. The objective is totalitarian control of Western civilization and this little setback is not going to change anything.

johnsteele on November 22, 2009 at 12:18 PM

I believe that they sincerely believe that AGW is occurring and are ignoring – sometimes deliberately – contradictory evidence.
SteveMG on November 22, 2009 at 12:16 PM

That’s the real problem with this cult or fad or whatever…they all really, really, really “believe” in AGW.

Mord on November 22, 2009 at 12:19 PM

More in the WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html

ROCnPhilly on November 22, 2009 at 12:19 PM

I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,” Jones replies.

What’s new, seek and destroy if you don’t agree.

yoda on November 22, 2009 at 12:19 PM

I read a lot of this on Instapundit this morning, I like that most people are going away from the hacker theory to someone on the inside putting the information out there. The Left has more trouble dealing with Whistleblowers then hackers. I hope this goes LARGE and there are daily drips of information brought out as the information is studied. Mr. Gore should be perfecting his “Not Evil, Just Wrong” explanation to the huge amounts of money he has raked in with this scam.

Cindy Munford on November 22, 2009 at 12:20 PM

Looking to take this bombshell, and turn it into a question to freak out the AGW people I meet…

ParisParamus on November 22, 2009 at 12:20 PM

I’ve never believed – I still don’t – that the proponents of AGW are constructing a “hoax.” I believe that they sincerely believe that AGW is occurring and are ignoring – sometimes deliberately – contradictory evidence.

SteveMG on November 22, 2009 at 12:16 PM

They are driven by an agenda. That isn’t good science.

a capella on November 22, 2009 at 12:21 PM

Ed, again – the Climatic Research Unit at the University of Easy Anglia in Norwich is 100% different from the Hadley Centre for Climate Change (part of the Met Office in Exeter, completely across the country). You do yourself no favors by getting this incorrect (you are just giving your enemies fuel).

It’s like if hacked emails from the University of Wisconsin came out and someone reported that they were from the University of Minnesota (because they are in the same vicinity).

zmrzlina on November 22, 2009 at 12:22 PM

This is bad for the Warmists. There are three problems that show up in these E-Mails.

1. They cannot account for why CO2 has risen in concentration but the warming trend hsa stalled or reversed and the Scientists have decided to prove Warming has taken place instead of explaining why Warming has not taken place.

2. They have admitted to discounting data that does not fit their conclusion and massaging it to be more persuasive.

3. Think any Scientist that dissents should be blacklisted by the Community.

Science has been hijacked by ideology.

Holger on November 22, 2009 at 12:23 PM

It’s still way to early in this controversy to dismiss the “entire” structure based on these e-mails.

I’ve never believed – I still don’t – that the proponents of AGW are constructing a “hoax.” I believe that they sincerely believe that AGW is occurring and are ignoring – sometimes deliberately – contradictory evidence.

SteveMG on November 22, 2009 at 12:16 PM

If this were the only controversy about their data…I might agree. But, this group has been involved with all kinds of shenanigans regarding their data before…like the famous ‘my dog eat my global warming data’ where they claimed they couldn’t release their original global warming tree ring data because they lost it…so we just have to kind of take their word for it that their manipulation and interpretation of that data is valid. And that’s not all, by a long shot. The press could and did ignore those antics. This is much harder to hide.

AUINSC on November 22, 2009 at 12:23 PM

This too, shall pass.

BKeyser on November 22, 2009 at 12:25 PM

Too many influential people have far too much at stake to allow this. The objective is totalitarian control of Western civilization and this little setback is not going to change anything.

johnsteele on November 22, 2009 at 12:18 PM

The cult of global warming was always built on shaky ground, which is why the emergency assault on the US economy via health care has taken the forefront. Card check is next.

batterup on November 22, 2009 at 12:25 PM

This pretty much explains liberals ideology and argument against anything

http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=video&video-id=1612

Aggie95 on November 22, 2009 at 12:26 PM

I know this is going to sound crazy but I actually feel like I have been given a present with the release of this information. I just wish it was a Brietbart production with more to follow. I am just being greedy.

Cindy Munford on November 22, 2009 at 12:27 PM

Not at all…this is the core group providing the research for the underpinnings of the AGW theory.

AUINSC on November 22, 2009 at 12:10 PM

As said elsewhere; we always knew global warming was man-made, know we know which men.

13blackcats on November 22, 2009 at 12:28 PM

The press could and did ignore those antics. This is much harder to hide.

To be sure, this should set off all kinds of alarms for the press.

As I understand it, the people involved here are not minor scientists that have undertaken research tangential to the AGW argument. These are some important figures that have provide critical and key “science” (Mann, the bristelcone date on historic temperatures, et cetera).

Unless the press is completely corrupt – a debatable point to be sure – this should lead to more scepticism and critical reporting.

Let’s not hold our CO2 filled breathes.

SteveMG on November 22, 2009 at 12:28 PM

Cindy, there’s reasonable speculation at WUWT and others that it was leaked by an insider, not a hack job. Go over there to see the timelines.

bikermailman on November 22, 2009 at 12:30 PM

That’s how lefties roll baby….
They start with the conclusion and then find the “facts” to support it.
The leftie media does the same thing.
Wouldn’t you love to see some e-mails between CNN correspondents during last years campaign….?

“Ok, we still haven’t confirmed that someone shouted “kill him” at a McCain rally but this story is too important to wait on. We all know it is probably true so let’s just run with it and fall back on unnamed sources.-”

NeoKong on November 22, 2009 at 12:30 PM

I see the racist blogger, Charles Johnson, and the members of his Klan attacked Ace.

Blake on November 22, 2009 at 12:30 PM

Cindy ……one must accept…its not a perfect world ….LOL the ideal place for this to have broke would have benn Glenn Beak….. it would have driven the liberals insane ….well err…hmmmmm…. O.K. sorry about that ….. it would have destroyed what little grasp on reality they may have left

Aggie95 on November 22, 2009 at 12:31 PM

what ever happened to Charles Johnson?

moonbatkiller on November 22, 2009 at 12:32 PM

tomas on November 22, 2009 at 12:04 PM

Yes they were fudged man. Wtf?

True_King on November 22, 2009 at 12:33 PM

I see the racist blogger, Charles Johnson, and the members of his Klan attacked Ace.

Blake on November 22, 2009 at 12:30 PM

What now? I refuse to go over there and give CJ the hits.

MBK, go to youtube and search ‘lizard lounge’. Says it all.

bikermailman on November 22, 2009 at 12:34 PM

It is clear that the alarmists would never let facts get in the way of their pre-ordained conclusions.Climate change is about social engineering.

Southernblogger on November 22, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Regardless of whether AGW is correct, these people have totally undermined their cause.

Their credibility is now completely shot. I wouldn’t believe any of them if they told me 2+2=4.

Chris of Rights on November 22, 2009 at 12:35 PM

moonbat….he spends a great deal of his day on a park bench feeding park rodents …. oh and shouting at the rain

Aggie95 on November 22, 2009 at 12:35 PM

the problem with the emails is that it’s like saying “so I only did enough for us to cover the spread…we still won you know.”

It cuts your credibility.

tomas on November 22, 2009 at 12:36 PM

err…now we know

Commentary from Canadian climate scientist Dr. Tim Ball…

The argument that global warming is due to humans, known as the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) is a deliberate fraud. I can now make that statement without fear of contradiction because of a remarkable hacking of files that provided not just a smoking gun, but an entire battery of machine guns.

Cindy Munford on November 22, 2009 at 12:27 PM

The whistleblower who left the initial file link at The Air Vent described what they had made available as “a random selection” of what there was. So there could be much more to come.

13blackcats on November 22, 2009 at 12:36 PM

Ed, one more try. It is much easier to sue for libel in the UK than in the USA.

Every mention of Hadley in your blog posts is potentially grounds for legal action, because you are leveling criticism at the Hadley Centre when they are not involved in this at all.

More importantly, I would think (maybe naively?) that conservatives would be concerned with getting the story right out of principle. There is enough of a story here without getting the basics (like where the emails were hacked from) wrong. Don’t we criticize the MSM for this kind of sloppiness?

zmrzlina on November 22, 2009 at 12:36 PM

The numbers could be perfect, but their proposed solution – wealth transfer – is unworkable. Using energy wisely is a good thing, but raising taxes and overriding national laws forces me to put on my tri-cornered hat, pick up my musket and stand on Concord bridge against the Redcoats…or Greencoats. This whole affair has been doomed to fail from the beginning. Crying “denier” can’t save them.

KillerKane on November 22, 2009 at 12:37 PM

It is clear that the alarmists would never let facts get in the way of their pre-ordained conclusions.Climate change is about social engineering.

Southernblogger on November 22, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Pre ordained conclusions is the very reason the IPCC exists. It’s charter makes it clear that it exists not to find the science, whether AGW is or is not happening, but to prove it and make changes to world society based on that.

bikermailman on November 22, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Ed – thanks for the correction. Now back to our regularly scheduled discussions about what this represents.

zmrzlina on November 22, 2009 at 12:38 PM

The Goracle will punish all non-believers! After all, He is interested in the money, er….truth!

GarandFan on November 22, 2009 at 12:39 PM

As said elsewhere; we always knew global warming was man-made, know we know which men.

13blackcats on November 22, 2009 at 12:28 PM

Just like the jobs “created”. Not true if one thinks in the usual sense, but accurate when created = “I made them up”.

ROCnPhilly on November 22, 2009 at 12:39 PM

I think Chris Horner finally can call this as the “blue dress moment”.

darwin-t on November 22, 2009 at 12:40 PM

I’ve never believed – I still don’t – that the proponents of AGW are constructing a “hoax.” I believe that they sincerely believe that AGW is occurring and are ignoring – sometimes deliberately – contradictory evidence.

SteveMG on November 22, 2009 at 12:16 PM

That’s better?

lorien1973 on November 22, 2009 at 12:41 PM

The Goracle will punish all non-believers! After all, He is interested in the money, er….truth!

GarandFan on November 22, 2009 at 12:39 PM

What is he going to do? Bore us to death?

Hellrider on November 22, 2009 at 12:43 PM

The State Run media will cloud anything that doesn’t fit into their little bubble.
DC 2010!!!???

mmcnamer1 on November 22, 2009 at 12:43 PM

Well, there goes my investment in that polar bear hamburger chain.

If this is true, we’ll have polar bears up to our rear ends.

SteveMG on November 22, 2009 at 12:44 PM

I’m guessing NBC won’t be reporting this.

darwin-t on November 22, 2009 at 12:44 PM

bikermailman on November 22, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Ace posted that johnson was deleting posts discussing the hacking. Johnson responded with his usual b.s. and said he only deleted links to the files because they were stolen. However, johnson is full of it. He only objects because global warming is his religion and he will tolerate no attacks on it. Someone mentioned that the material was the subject of numerous foia requests. I’m not so sure of that since the University is in the UK. However, I never consider any emails made from work private, i.e, belonging to the individual. And when it’s a university being funded by taxpayers, even brits, the information belongs to the people.

Blake on November 22, 2009 at 12:44 PM

That’s better?

No, different.

It’s one thing to reveal fraud; another to reveal an error.

SteveMG on November 22, 2009 at 12:45 PM

My link won’t work. It’s from Hulu showing a “30 Rock” clip of Algore preaching about light bulbs and saving Mother Earth.

darwin-t on November 22, 2009 at 12:46 PM

This info is now in the public domain, similar to the Pentagon Papers.

Plus, these people were committing a fraud. I don’t think they can argue a privacy right when what they were doing was a tort, if not a criminal act.

Blake on November 22, 2009 at 12:47 PM

Let’s not engage in our own hysteria.

SteveMG on November 22, 2009 at 12:08 PM

Those 4 people are AGW.They run the whole show.It is a criminal fraud.People all over the world are forced to reduce their standard of living for greedy liars.Beheading is in order.

tim c on November 22, 2009 at 12:47 PM

It’s one thing to reveal fraud; another to reveal an error.

SteveMG on November 22, 2009 at 12:45 PM

I think calling “deliberately ignoring contrary evidence” an error is being generous.

lorien1973 on November 22, 2009 at 12:47 PM

Aggie95 on November 22, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Thanks for the video by Klavan. “Shut up is on the march”. We conservatives have been told to “shut up” long enough by the liberals and I for one am tired of it!

yoda on November 22, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Compare media reporting on ClimateGate to WaterGate. In WaterGate, the third rate break in revealed the truth, in ClimateGate, they will say, the third rate break in revealed nothing.

Angry Dumbo on November 22, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Blake on November 22, 2009 at 12:47 PM

And they were engaging in criminal acts, by deleting data subject to FOI requests. And conspiring to do so, as well.

And the government (by giving them advice on how to handle FIO requests) is complicit.

lorien1973 on November 22, 2009 at 12:48 PM

It’s one thing to reveal fraud; another to reveal an error.

SteveMG on November 22, 2009 at 12:45 PM

They are willfully ignoring contrary evidence. Worse,t hey are suppressing it. And they are financially benefiting from it. Hell yes it’s criminal.

Blake on November 22, 2009 at 12:50 PM

what ever happened to Charles Johnson?

moonbatkiller on November 22, 2009 at 12:32 PM

He’s totally intolerant of anything on the right. A large percentage of his posts are of obscure people or events which he uses as a broad brush to paint all conservatives as crazy. Plus any mention of Sarah Palin brings out the wackos. He and his minions have absolutely no control over their bitter hatred towards her.

perroviejo on November 22, 2009 at 12:50 PM

“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.

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,” Jones replies.

Which is fascinating as this followed:

Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute who comes under fire in the e-mails, said these same academics repeatedly criticized him for not having published more peer-reviewed papers.

Yes the coterie involved was strong-arming publication, trying to get the peer-review process changed to shut out certain papers and then, in the midst of doing so, complain that a critic doesn’t have more peer-reviewed papers! Well he might have been able to get those if that same coterie weren’t strong-arming publications, trying to define the peer-review process and generally working to rig the system to only support their hypothoses.

That is not misguided behavior in the name of science, that is purposefully shutting down debate via one’s actions. And as this group didn’t want the actual data released, like the tree-ring data that was blockaded for nearly a decade, then trying to shut down debate over the DATA is purposeful fraud.

This makes Piltdown Man seem tiny in comparison.

Anyone associated with this fraud needs to be identified, their role that they played figured out and real reason why they helped in this fraud and cover-up brought forth.

ajacksonian on November 22, 2009 at 12:50 PM

Does this now force Algore to debate his positions in public with all the flat earthers?

d1carter on November 22, 2009 at 12:51 PM

Aggie95 on November 22, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Heh. Well said.

perroviejo on November 22, 2009 at 12:52 PM

SUV’s cause sun spots.

We must redistribute the world’s wealth to stop global warming.

The science is in. The debate is over.

petefrt on November 22, 2009 at 12:52 PM

what ever happened to Charles Johnson?

moonbatkiller on November 22, 2009 at 12:32 PM

Read his posts prior to 9/11/01 and wonder why anyone ever supported him.

lorien1973 on November 22, 2009 at 12:52 PM

Someone mentioned that the material was the subject of numerous foia requests.

Blake on November 22, 2009 at 12:44 PM

The email and data leak occurred the day after the FOI request was refused.

13blackcats on November 22, 2009 at 12:52 PM

Algore is the Bernie Madoff of environmentalism.

petefrt on November 22, 2009 at 12:52 PM

I think calling “deliberately ignoring contrary evidence” an error is being generous.

The history of science is filled with examples of this.

They’re called human beings.

SteveMG on November 22, 2009 at 12:53 PM

SteveMG on November 22, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Yes, and it’s called fraud for a reason. The reason behind the fraud is irrelevant.

lorien1973 on November 22, 2009 at 12:54 PM

And the government (by giving them advice on how to handle FIO requests) is complicit.

lorien1973 on November 22, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Certainly they are complicit. The attempt to blame the U.S. for pollution damage as a method to coerce the U.S. into sending $$$ to europe didn’t work in the 80′s. Now climate change is being used for the same reason.

ROCnPhilly on November 22, 2009 at 12:55 PM

More and more, this is looking like an inside job, probably a whistleblower, rather than a hacker. The emails and documents are too focused to be any random collection of things found on the CRU server. Also, the timing, in relation to the debunking of one of these scientist’s work (Keith Briffa), and in relation to denied FOIA requests, is just too suspicious to be a random hack.

As one of those emails put it in regard to a colleague, someone isn’t reliable enough to trust with data like this.

NeighborhoodCatLady on November 22, 2009 at 12:56 PM

“You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There’s been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away — all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in Arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. It might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears the earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It’s powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. Do you think this is the first time that’s happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive gas, like fluorine. When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. A hundred years ago we didn’t have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can’t imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven’t got the humility to try. We’ve been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we’re gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.”

blatantblue on November 22, 2009 at 12:58 PM

To be sure, this should set off all kinds of alarms for the press.

As I understand it, the people involved here are not minor scientists that have undertaken research tangential to the AGW argument. These are some important figures that have provide critical and key “science” (Mann, the bristelcone date on historic temperatures, et cetera).

Unless the press is completely corrupt – a debatable point to be sure – this should lead to more scepticism and critical reporting.

Let’s not hold our CO2 filled breathes.

SteveMG on November 22, 2009 at 12:28 PMHave you been paying attention at all?

thomasaur on November 22, 2009 at 1:00 PM

So, the brits have their own version of FOIA. They’re not as backward as I thought!

Blake on November 22, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Personally, I think the right should drop the topic entirely and focus on how Cap-and-Trade is nothing more than a boondoggle tax for the government.

I have yet to see how it encourages more responsibility in terms of environmental law.

AnninCA on November 22, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Yes, and it’s called fraud for a reason. The reason behind the fraud is irrelevant.

Fraud is deliberate – willful – deception.

These people, in my view, sincerely believe that AGW is occurring. They ignore contradictory evidence not because they believe that it disproves AGW but because they believe that other evidence proves it or overwhelms any contradictory evidence.

It may be bad science – it apparently is – but it’s not fraud.

To use the Galileo example, scientists (such as they were at the time) that believed that the universe revolved around the Earth didn’t ignore contradictory evidence because they were perpetrating a fraud. They ignored conradictory evidence because they didn’t believe it was sufficient to disprove their beliefs.

There’s nothing I’ve seen (I’ve only briefly read some of the e-mails) that indicate that these men know that AGW isn’t occurring. They believe that AGW is indeed occurring and that any contradictory evidence can be dismissed.

To be sure, they can be indicted (if you will) for practicing bad science. And for a host of other scientific “sins.”

Fraud isn’t one of them.

SteveMG on November 22, 2009 at 1:05 PM

Charles Johnson a programmer who is stupid, but crafty and bears watching has turned liberal and is of course using the liberal tactic — smear the truth tellers if it hurts your plan. Unfortunately, the warming results are following the money provided by Al Gore.

If all of the journals stuck to their guns and demanded to see the data even under a non disclosure agreement and would not publish unless the could verify an unbiased result (cherry picking the data in this case, the we wouldn’t be having it so bad in the global warming case. Since the veracity of the data is so bad a thorough review is required. The review process must be scrupulously developed and the result available to the public.

NOBOZONS on November 22, 2009 at 1:05 PM

Yet today’s Wx Post Outlook section is dedicated to the religion of Global Warmingism!

JPlunket on November 22, 2009 at 1:06 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3