As the "Climategate" scandal begins to finally break into the global media, we're beginning to see a backlash against the academics involved in the efforts to edit data and shape the debate on global climate change.
The first major casualty appears to be Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia who headed up the Climate Research Unit and was the leading figure in the email discussions at the center of this controversy. Despite attempting to deny any wrongdoing for the past week, Jones has now "stepped aside" from his position heading the CRU while the University conducts an investigation.
Penn State professor and Director of the Earth Science Center Michael Mann is also the subject of an academic investigation in relation to his role in the email exchanges. Mann has been one of the most outspoken advocates of the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming and has come under substantial criticism for his "hockey stick" model of global warming.
Meanwhile further skeptical reaction has contributed to the resignation of five members of the Australian parliament in objection to the passage of "cap and trade" legislation in that country. They doubt the value of sacrificing Australia's relatively strong economy for an increasingly discredited theory of climate change.
At this point Cap and Trade remains on the agenda for the US Congress and President Obama still plans to attend the Copenhagen meeting on climate change, but as skepticism grows a lot more than the jobs and reputations of a few academics may be riding on climategate.
.jpg?t=20120209092158)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Arch Conservative
I prefer Cilmaquiddick to Climategate.
Phil Jones is gone and more to come?
It's official, the fat man is in the water and swimming for shore.
2 - Mark
Penn State professor and Director of the Earth Science Center Michael Mann is also the subject of an academic investigation in relation to his role in the email exchanges.
the original reporting -- you decide
3 - Baritone
Mark,
Interesting. Yes, the emails in question will be studied, but there seems to be no indication that Mann or his research is under scrutiny. His and others' climate research maintains its acceptance and support by most scientific bodies concerned with climate change.
The Australian parliament resignations reflect the usual dollars and cents concerns and have no bearing on the veracity of climate change research or its conclusions.
As worst, Professor Jones may be guilty of over-zealousness or, perhaps, unreasoned panic regarding his efforts. That changes nothing. The earth is still heating up, and the cause is most likely man made greenhouse gases.
B
4 - Dave Nalle
Baritone, I suggest you read some of the emails before dismissing them as you have. I was skeptical at first as well, with much the same viewpoint you express, but after reading more of them I just can't explain away some of the stuff that Jones was involved in.
BTW, the Aussie parliament just voted to kill its cap and trade bill.
Dave
5 - Arch Conservative
Isn't it deliciously ironic that the Al Gore invented the internet and now it is that very internet, through the Climategate emails, that is being used to bring down the Global Warming hoax?
6 - Baritone
None of this refutes the science. The perhaps stupid acts of one or more individuals to skew some numbers does not obviate the reality.
B
7 - Heloise
I just posted it to my "Mad Scientist" article. Jones has stepped down as director.
8 - anthony
Sure,none of this changes anything,the theory is so sound its not worth questioning. This is the problem, we are encouraged to cease entertaining any bit of skepticism...that is horrible. The fact is climate change is a constant, as is the recycling of materials in volcanic eruptions. The climate has been almost unprecedentedly stable the past 5 to 10,000 years,of course it will change. The worse case scenario of global warming calls for a 6 degree rise in temperature Celsius, we are to believe parts of Earth will be uninhabitable. Nonsense. Read of Earths history, there were MANY periods where the world was 6 degrees Celsius warmer than present, and the fact is life flourished,and that is with over 150 percent the quantity of CO2 than is present today.
If the Earth is on a warming course, it is far more likely to be due to solar activity. It is a fact our star is overwhelmingly the dominant driver of our climate. Look up sunspot activity and earths temperature trend, there is an obvious correlation.
Anyway, lets talk greenhouse gas, CO2 is nothing compared to Water Vapor. Water vapor is the MOST potent greenhouse gas known. While we may measure CO2 levels via ice cores and so forth, we have no mechanism to chart Water Vapor content trends in the prehistoric past. This is incredibly damning. Yet a great idea to fight global warming consists of hydrogen cars, after all, all theyd emit is WATER VAPOR, the most powerful of all greenhouse gases. Its laughable.
I used to buy into the AGW theory,until I learned of sunspot activity obviously affecting our temperatures,just how dominant the sun is when it comes toward driving our climate, and the gaping hole known as our being unable to measure trends of the most potent greenhouse gas. I am not saying I know our burning of fossil fuels isnt causing warming, much less partially nor completely, either may be the reality,however,it is not proven. Its like atheism, they hold that same irrationally solid conviction as do the superstitious.
Thats what we all should be willing to do,always be prepared to reassess ones views when presented with a logical reason, but for some reason very few people will show healthy skepticism. It is the same blind and ignorant practice as believing in a religion, and that is why this AGW theory should be viewed cautiously.
9 - Dave Nalle
None of this refutes the science. The perhaps stupid acts of one or more individuals to skew some numbers does not obviate the reality.
Sorry, it does refute the science. If the leading proponents of the AGW theory felt it necessary to change numbers and suppress data that means that they themselves doubt the science they are promoting, and that places it all in doubt. There can hardly be a stronger refutation.
Dave
10 - Baritone
No Dave, it doesn't. We are talking essentially about one person. The scope of the science is much broader than that.
11 - Glenn Contrarian
If ONE person skewing statistics that support AGW refutes the science thereof, then what does that say of the ONE person I pointed out to you in your other article on this topic, said person being a global-warming SKEPTIC who skewed statistics to try to tear down the AGW science?
What's sauce for the goose, y'know? And once we're out of the current solar minimum that is mitigating somewhat the harshest effects of global warming (never mind that eight of the past ten years are the warmest since record-keeping began), you will begin to see just how bad it can get.
12 - Dave Nalle
One person? Do you people make no effort at all to actually read the links in these articles or inform yourself about the subjects you comment on?
The emails in question involve dozens of people including the most influential proponents of global warming at the institution which is the clearing house for global warming data. Those involved also include the primary authors of the IPCC report.
These people are the leaders who all the other global warming activists follow. Look up major articles on the subject in scientific journals and you will find the same names coming up again and again, and those names are involved in these email exchanges.
ever mind that eight of the past ten years are the warmest since record-keeping began
Again, are you not paying attention or do you deliberately spew disinformation for some dubious purpose? The whole current crisis began because of German scientists who raised questions about the CRU's research because the last 10 years were NOT warmer than normal and claims that they included unusuallly warm years were bogus.
Dave
13 - Arch Conservative
It's all the rage for AGW eco-nazis to attribute monetary motives to those who raise questions yet Phil Jones was receiving millions of the agw movement. Gore isn't exactly in the poorhouse either but no one wants to talk about that.
Years from now history will rightly rectify the madness that Gore and his ilk are in the midst of perpetuating.
14 - Dan(Miller)
James Hansen, a principal proponent of the existence of man made global warming, now claims that it would be better were the Copenhagen climate conference to fail. He does not think that the "science" of global warming is wrong.
Hansen admitted the controversy could shake public's trust, and called for an investigation. "All that stuff they are arguing about the data doesn't really change the analysis at all, but it does leave a very bad impression," he said.
However, he opposes the "cap and trade" scam, noting
"This is analagous to the indulgences that the Catholic church sold in the middle ages. The bishops collected lots of money and the sinners got redemption. Both parties liked that arrangement despite its absurdity. That is exactly what's happening," he said. "We've got the developed countries who want to continue more or less business as usual and then these developing countries who want money and that is what they can get through offsets [sold through the carbon markets]."
Dan(Miller)
15 - Dave Nalle
It doesn't really come out in my articles opposing these GW based power plays, but I've been a strong conservationist all my life. I believe strongly in improving the environment, limiting human impact and making the world a healthier place to live.
But as Hansen points out, cap and trade and other draconian measures really have nothing to do with addressing the output of pollution. They are just moneymaking and wealth redistribution schemes which don't actually solve the problems they are meant to address.
The same is true of Kyoto and now Copenhagen. They aren't intended to actually address polluton, they're designed as power-grabs for globalist bureaucrats and special interest groups and as wealth redistribution programs.
The proper way for the US to deal with environmental issues is through intelligent and comprehensive domestic legislation, regulating output and providing sensible incentives for rsearch and implementing green solutions. This is how we made remarkable improvements in our air and water over the past 30 years -- improvements which the developing world has yet to even begin to implement despite the fact that our work has made cleaning up pollution cheaper, easier and more effective for them.
Dave
16 - Dan(Miller)
It is encouraging to learn that prostitutes (no, not the "scientists") are fully supportive of the Copenhagen Climate Disaster Conference. They are in good company.
Copenhagen's city council in conjunction with Lord Mayor Ritt Bjerregaard sent postcards out to 160 Copenhagen hotels urging COP15 guests and delegates to 'Be sustainable - don't buy sex.'
"Dear hotel owner, we would like to urge you not to arrange contacts between hotel guests and prostitutes," the approach to hotels says.
Now, Copenhagen prostitutes are up in arms, saying that the council has no business meddling in their affairs. They have now offered free sex to anyone who can produce one of the offending postcards and their COP15 identity card, according to the Web site avisen.dk.
Perhaps, with luck, this may breathe new life into the conference.
Will this delightful episode be referred in history as "climaxgate?"
Dan(Miller)
17 - Dr Dreadful
I anxiously await the arrival of my delegate materials and plane tickets.
18 - roger nowosielski
That sounds like a good deal. We're talking about Danish girls, aren't we? They must be comparable to the Amsterdam ladies.
19 - Dan(Miller)
Doc,
Buy American! it's the patriotic thing to do.
Dan(Miller)
20 - roger nowosielski
Are you referring to sexual services, Dan Miller? I would agree if we were talking about a GM product, such as it may be. But when it comes to sex and love, a little spice is not a bad thing.
21 - Dan(Miller)
Roger, whatever turns you on.
Dan(Miller)
22 - Dan(Miller)
President Obama has decided to delay, briefly, his attendance at the Copenhagen Climate Disaster Conference until December 18. There is, obviously, no connection between this delay and the report noted in my Comment #16.
Dan(Miller)
23 - Dan(Miller)
Where are the three major television networks hiding?
Dan(Miller)
24 - Baritone
Climate change naysayers are idiots. The supposed "hoax" is itself a hoax - the result of people who understand nothing wanting us all to believe otherwise.
Listen to this. Not so cut and dried as all you opposed to notions of man-made global warming would like.
B
25 - Glenn Contrarian
No, Baritone, I disagree. GW deniers are not idiots. They are, however, much more likely to believe that WWE (formerly WWF) isn't fake at all, and that Obama was actually born in Kenya and still somehow fooled all the Democrats into thinking he was born here.
Well, on second thought...maybe you're right after all....