TH!NK post

This article is archived. Comments are closed.

Climategate: A criminal scandal

Published 24th November 2009 - 16 comments - 1458 views -

For those still in denial, for those who wish to dismiss what has been exposed, Robert Tracinski nails it: "This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money — Phil Jones has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants from the British government — which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers. It's the most insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are lauded as public heroes. Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being 'confused' by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism."

Meanwhile, George Monbiot (!) writes: "It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow." Plus: "I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed."

But where's the outrage here? If anger at "greenwashing" is acceptable on this platform, isn't anger at organized scientific fraud just as righteous? Or am I missing something? After all, the scientific method only works when researchers can implicitly trust the results offered by their colleagues.

By the way, Climategate does not mean that there is no warming trend or that mankind is not responsible for some of it. But it is clear that one branch of climate science — paleoclimatology — has become so politicized that it engaged in unethical and possibly illegal acts.

Because paleoclimatology is a critical part of the scientific argument for responding to global warming, the numbers need to be rechecked. While that's going on, those demanding political action on global warming should wait until the results of any investigations, and possible criminal proceedings, are available.

Category: Climate Heroes, | Tags: crime, bogus scientific research, fraudulent theory,



Comments

Vitezslav Kremlik on 24th November 2009:

I suggest the Greenpeace, eco-NGO, climate scientists and all the others return back all the billions of cash they have received so far from our taxes.

The Copenhagen Conferene should deal with payment schemes, how to do this refund. To agree on some calendar for instalments.

Jodi Bush on 24th November 2009:

If they have fabricated data then they have done a huge disservice to science, politics and society. I don’t think it points to a worldwide conspiracy, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be looked into. There is at least reason enough for some inquiry - especially since they have received huge amounts of funding. I think the real shame is that there are many other strands of climate science, and significant evidence that we are facing a serious threat in terms of global warming - yet this is going to set back any attempts to deal with it. I hope to god the sceptics are right because otherwise I think we’re totally screwed.

Benno Hansen on 24th November 2009:

Since you have bothered to post yet another article about this incident…

COP15 / Scientists “behaving badly” won’t influence UN climate conference.

Adela on 24th November 2009:

Once again, it is proven that every man has a price. It’s still interesting how ‘climategate’ popped out less than a month before COP15.


And yes, I agree numbers should be rechecked, but this shouldn’t stop the world from committing and acting upon global warming. Because unfortunately, we’re not dealing with some scientists who decided to play god. Climate change is real.

Mike on 25th November 2009:

It’s still interesting how all these “worse than the worst case scenarios” have popped out less than a month before COP15.

Climate always changes, it is the norm not the exception. All climatic indicators show no acceleration in sea level rise, no accelerated glacier melt, no trends in extreme weather events, no ocean acidifiation; nothing the alarmists say is actually happening, not even the recent reports of east-antarctic ice melt. Evidence of warming is not proof man caused it regardless. It is physically impossible for anthropogenic CO2 to cause measurable warming.

Meanwhile, life on earth has benefitted enormously from the modest the supposed 0.8 degrees of warming plus 100ppm CO2 over the past 250 years.

In short, you have no evidence that CO2 is causing global warming/climate change. ZERO.

You say we deny the science. THERE IS NO SCIENCE TO DENY.

Eamonn Fitzgerald on 25th November 2009:

Adela writes: “It’s still interesting how ‘climategate’ popped out less than a month before COP15.”

Well, Paul Hudson at the BBC writes: “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.”  http://bit.ly/8t6ggi

As we can see, 12 October is a little bit more than “less than a month before COP15”.

Vitezslav Kremlik on 25th November 2009:

Dear “solar warming deniers” and “climategate deniers”.

Jodi, how can you write now “there are many other strands of climate science, and significant evidence that we are facing a serious threat in terms of global warming”

This “significant evidence” you write about was fabricated by people like Mann.

Forged evidence is no evidence.

No evidence our warming is/was unique.
No evidence our warming is caused by CO2.
No evidence the warming will continue.

Let me paraphrase Jorgensen: Warming is not manmade and CO2 reduction cannot affect temperatures.. Stop discussing that.

Jack Johnson on 25th November 2009:

Did you read even Monbiot properly? Or just read the first few lines?

Jack Johnson on 25th November 2009:

And Mike, you are a stuck record. You have been had on this forum about CO2. Why don’t you waste your time elsewhere?

Jack Johnson on 25th November 2009:

Here is what he wrote in the end, just in case you missed it in ur excitement:

The hacked emails are a hard knock, but the science of global warming withstands much more than that.

Hemant Anant Jain on 25th November 2009:

And fresh in:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/25/copenhagen-diagnosis-ipcc-science

Vitezslav Kremlik on 25th November 2009:

Eamon, are you reading Hemant, Benno and Jack comments here? Are you laughing too?

“Climate change is real.” (of course, climate change existed even before humans evolved)

“The science of global warming withstands much more than… (being totally discredited). “

“Latest (falsified) IPCC report says warming is worse than we expected”

Daniel Nylin Nilsson on 25th November 2009:

Take it easy, Eamonn. “The crime of the century”? Isn’t that overreacting a little? I am sure there have been other cases of not handing out information, just as bad. I you want a real crime, take a look at the Bhopal catastrophe.

As for paying back tax money… I wonder who dares thowing the first stone.

Federico Pistono on 27th November 2009:

Hi Eamonn, here’s to give my contribution. smile

Federico Pistono on 27th November 2009:

Sorry, there’s obviously a “to give” too much.

Federico Pistono on 27th November 2009:

I always wondered why this platform is missing a “preview” button for the comments… raspberry

This article is archived. Comments are closed.