I still cannot get my head around exactly why we need a House of Commons Inquiry into the “goings-on” at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA).
It’s not as if Professor Phil Jones has done anything wrong. In fact, he’s been behaving like any other productive and fruitful researcher, getting on with the work and trying to brush off unhelpful distractions, including a deliberate smear campaign.
OK, so he wrote a few contentious e-mails, using casual language and a frustrated tone. This was not Science, and should not be considered representative of his work. Take a look at his work, results of painstaking and in-depth analysis of raw data :-
“Climate over past millennia : P. D. Jones, Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK; M. E. Mann, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA : We review evidence for climate change over the past several millennia from instrumental and high-resolution climate “proxy” data sources and climate modeling studies. We focus on changes over the past 1 to 2 millennia. We assess reconstructions and modeling studies analyzing a number of different climate fields, including atmospheric circulation diagnostics, precipitation, and drought. We devote particular attention to proxy-based reconstructions of temperature patterns in past centuries, which place recent large-scale warming in an appropriate longer-term context. Our assessment affirms the conclusion that late 20th century warmth is unprecedented at hemispheric and, likely, global scales. There is more tentative evidence that particular modes of climate variability, such as the El Niño/Southern Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation, may have exhibited late 20th century behavior that is anomalous in a long-term context. Regional conclusions, particularly for the Southern Hemisphere and parts of the tropics where high-resolution proxy data are sparse, are more circumspect. The dramatic differences between regional and hemispheric/global past trends, and the distinction between changes in surface temperature and precipitation/drought fields, underscore the limited utility in the use of terms such as the “Little Ice Age” and “Medieval Warm Period” for describing past climate epochs during the last millennium. Comparison of empirical evidence with proxy-based reconstructions demonstrates that natural factors appear to explain relatively well the major surface temperature changes of the past millennium through the 19th century (including hemispheric means and some spatial patterns). Only anthropogenic forcing of climate, however, can explain the recent anomalous warming in the late 20th century.”
The self-styled Climate Change “sceptics”, who are seeking to obstruct the progress of Climate Change Science, accuse Phil Jones, Mike Mann and others of errors that do not have any foundation.
“They hid the data; they’re not transparent”, is one notorious and invalid claim.
“They manipulated the results to fit a political agenda”, is another.
“They colluded to push out alternative research; they’ve suppressed dissenting voices; they subverted the peer-review process”, is yet another accusation.
There are now anti-Science sentiments being expressed freely and liberally throughout the World Wide Web.
I detect an anti-Science alarmism – an attempt to influence people to be suspicious and mistrustful of Science.
Climate Change “sceptics” accuse Climate Change Scientists of alarmism, but actually, it’s the “sceptics” who are being alarmist, breeding mistrust, preaching lack of confidence in Science, hinting at malpractice in Scientists.
Projection is typical psychopathic behaviour, shouting first and loudest in blaming others for your own misdeeds and bad intentions.
Public loathing for Climate Change Scientists has reached record levels. This is the result of an explicit campaign to unseat faith in the well-established Science of Global Warming, and to drive down acceptance of the messages of Climate Change Scientists.
Look guys : the people that are warning you and your governments about the risks of Climate Change are drawn from the same community that gave you Penicillin, the Moonshots, reconstructive surgery, IVF, mobile telephonic communication, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, the Internet and laser tattoo removal.
They were right before, and they’re right now. A bunch of pernickity electronic mails doesn’t change that. The Science still holds, despite the wrong accusations levelled at it.
The Climate Change Scientists are as accurate and meticulous and cautious as any scientists before them have been in any area, including Medicine, Electronics and Space.
Climatologists deserve your respect.
Although the Climate Change “sceptics” feel they are on the crest of a change, Science will not be beaten, especially not by rumour-mongering and dastardly lies.
Climate Change Scientists will still be here, five, ten, twenty years down the line, with firmer and further evidence of what Greenhouse Gases are doing to wreck the Biosphere.
More research grants will be made, more research papers will be written and more IPCC Reports will come.
You cannot beat the evidence, even with deception, rage and smear tactics.
Science will win.
“”History is hard to know, because of all the hired b3ll5h!t, but even without being sure of “history” it seems entirely reasonable to think that every now and then the energy of a whole generation comes to a head in a long fine flash, for reasons that nobody really understands at the time — and which never explain, in retrospect, what actually happened…There was madness in any direction…You could strike sparks anywhere. There was a fantastic universal sense that whatever we were doing was right, that we were winning…And that, I think, was the handle — that sense of inevitable victory over the forces of Old and Evil. Not in any mean or military sense; we didn’t need that. Our energy would simply prevail. There was no point in fighting — on our side or theirs. We had all the momentum; we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave…”