Fox News has been reporting this week that the Climate Research Unit(CRU) has been fudging reports and deleting e-mails to hide what they have been doing.
Wow... What the hell? You mean to tell me that, all the bullshit put forth by the CRU - and other environmentalist whackjobs - was just that?
Here is the article from Fox News(articles are italicized):
Hackers broke into the servers at a prominent British climate
research center and leaked years worth of e-mail messages onto the Web,
including one with a reference to a plan to "hide the decline" in
temperatures.
The Internet is abuzz about the leaked data from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (commonly called Hadley CRU), which has acknowledged the theft of 61MB of confidential data.
Climate change skeptics describe the leaked data as a "smoking gun,"
evidence of collusion among climatologists and manipulation of data to
support the widely held view that climate change is caused by the
actions of mankind. The authors of some of the e-mails, however, accuse
the skeptics of taking the messages out of context, adding that the
evidence still clearly shows a warming trend.
The files were reportedly released on a Russian file-serve by an anonymous poster calling himself "FOIA."
In an exclusive interview in Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition, Phil Jones, the head of the Hadley CRU, confirmed that the leaked data is real.
"It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days
ago," he told the magazine, noting that the center has yet to contact
the police about the data breach.
TGIF Edition asked Jones about the controversial "hide the
decline" comment from an e-mail he wrote in 1999: "I've just completed
Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the
last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from 1961 for Keith's to
hide the decline."
He told the magazine that there was no intention to mislead, but he had "no idea" what he meant by those words.
"That was an e-mail from ten years ago. Can you remember the exact context of what you wrote ten years ago?" he said.
"Mike" refers to Jones' colleague Michael Mann, who told the New
York Times that the "trick" was simply a way of solving a data problem.
In this case, the warming trend of the last century was detected in
tree-ring samples only until 1960, but it continued in thermometer
readings.
Jones' word choice was poor, Mann told the Times, but the calculations were "not something secret."
The Telegraph has posted some of the more scathing excerpts from these emails,
which the newspaper suggests points to manipulation of evidence and
private doubts about the reality of global warming, though the much of
the scientific language in the e-mails is esoteric and hard to
interpret.
Others suggest the comments are simply "scientists talking about
science." In an interview with Wired, Kevin Trenberth, head of the
Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric
Research, points out that "if you read all of these e-mails, you will
be surprised at the integrity of these scientists."
Still, one notable e-mail from the hacked files clearly describes
how to squeeze dissenting scientists from the peer review process:
"I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a
legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our
colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or
cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we
tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on
the editorial board…What do others think?"
But then, I find this article by The Guardian in the United Kingdom, stating that the University of East Aglia would be conducting an investigation on the e-mails and the CRU. Here is the article:
The University of East Anglia
is to launch a review into the theft and online publication of hundreds
of emails sent by scientists in its climate research unit.
Selected and unverified extracts from the emails have been used by climate change
deniers to claim that the scientists colluded to manipulate climate
data, causing a storm on deniers' blogs. The charge is rejected as
"despicable" by those involved and as groundless by leading scientific
bodies.
With less than two weeks before the crucial UN climate
change summit in Copenhagen, climate scientists and campaigners are
assessing the damage the incident has caused to the public
understanding of global warming. Opinion was split last night over how
to deal with the fallout.
Bob Ward, director of policy and
communications at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at
the London School of Economics, called for an investigation.
"Once
appropriate action has been taken over the hacking, there has to be
some process to assess the substance of the email messages as well," he
said.
"The selective disclosure and dissemination of the messages
has created the impression of impropriety, and the only way of clearing
the air now would be through a rigorous investigation. "
However, others said an investigation would be a mistake, particularly as some climate sceptics were also calling for one.
Andy
Atkins, Friends of the Earth's executive director, said: "Calls for an
inquiry look suspiciously like an attempt to cast doubt on the science
of climate change ahead of crucial UN negotiations.
"The
overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe that climate change
is happening, that it is man-made, and that it poses a major threat to
people across the planet. We can't afford to be distracted from the
need for urgent action."
George Marshall, founder of the Climate
Outreach and Information Network, said: "The UEA response has been
frankly pathetic. One can only imagine that the UEA's communications
team is totally out of its depth. A less charitable conclusion is that
they are defending the interests of UEA and are not concerned about –
or have not understood – the damage to climate science."
The Met
Office, which jointly produces global temperature data with the climate
research unit, said there was no need for an inquiry. "If you look at
the emails, there isn't any evidence that the data was falsified and
there's no evidence that climate change is a hoax," a spokesman said.
"It's
a shame that some of the sceptics have had to take this rather shallow
attempt to discredit robust science undertaken by some of the world's
most respected scientists. It's no surprise, with the Copenhagen talks
just days away, that this has happened now."
Michael Mann,
director of the earth system science centre at the University of
Pennsylvania, and a long-term target of sceptics, agreed the timing was
suspicious.
"What appears to have happened is that going into
this monumental climate summit in a couple of weeks the other side,
which does not favour taking action to combat climate change, resorted
to an illegal smear campaign," he said.
"They are going through
them and cherry-picking them for any word they can find that is cited
out of context and can appear incriminating. I think it's despicable."
He
told the Guardian the emails – though embarrassing – did not undermine
the body of science. "This doesn't make any difference at all in degree
of consensus on climate change," Mann said. "I hope it boomerangs back
on the criminals."
A joint statement from the Met Office, Royal
Society and the Natural Environment Research Council said: "The
scientific evidence which underpins calls for action at Copenhagen is
very strong.
"Without co-ordinated international action on
greenhouse gas emissions, the impacts on climate and civilisation could
be severe."
So there it is. Two different articles. One, full out claiming(basically) that Climate Change is a hoax by CRU and their ilk. The second, more cautious - and with a bit of disbelief - and willing to wait until a review is in before condemning it. So far, Fox News is the only news organization that has reported about the e-mail leak. Which is a bit worriesome for me. They are news organizations, it's their job to report things like this, even if it goes against their political affiliations.
Anywho, I thought others would like to read this as well, so I posted it for you. I want your take on this. Is it a bunch of B.S.? Or, is there some truth to either article? Are you on the fence on this? Have at it!
Until next time...
-Wil