Tuesday, December 1, 2009

ClimateGate Phil Jones Steps Aside: CRU ClimateGate Chief Steps Down:

CRU head, Phil Jones, says he will step aside as an independent review of the thousands of emails and documents recently hacked and published online for the world to see, are reveiwed.

Phil Jones

Jones is considered the chief Climate czar. His data is fed to the U.N.'s IPCC (the world climate change panel known as the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change) and they took it as gospel - ignoring the data of thousands of dissenters, because Jones' organization, the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in Britain has been allowed to thwart any discussion of differing opinions.  Of the four sets of global temperature data used by the IPCC, those devised by Phil Jones have been considered the most important, and the CRU, which employs him, runs the global warming gig for the world.

Can you imagine what would happen to Al Gore's bank account if there were no records to support global warming? Can you imagine Phil Jones' situation sans the $22 million he has received in recent years to support this claim of global warming? Can you imagine the U.N.'s goal to control the world through global warming doom and gloom, if there were no global warming? Well, there is no global warming, and for anyone sitting on the fence - for those not really sure of the truth, we know it now - right from the emails of those at the top of the global warming pyramid.

So Jones will now temporarily step aside as someone, hopefully an unbiased-someone, looks over the emails and documents, some of which clearly show that Jones and his buddies were adjusting older temperatures downward and more recent temps upward, withholding basic data, advising other scientists to avoid supplying information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and to actually delete data harmful to the global warming/climate change goal.
...the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.

In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.
So much for "peer reviewed" science!

From NationalReviewOnline's Patrick J. Michaels, whose column is aptly titled "the Dog Ate Global Warming:
Putting together such a record isn’t at all easy. Weather stations weren’t really designed to monitor global climate. Long-standing ones were usually established at points of commerce, which tend to grow into cities that induce spurious warming trends in their records. Trees grow up around thermometers and lower the afternoon temperature. Further, as documented by the University of Colorado’s Roger Pielke Sr., many of the stations themselves are placed in locations, such as in parking lots or near heat vents, where artificially high temperatures are bound to be recorded.

So the weather data that go into the historical climate records that are required to verify models of global warming aren’t the original records at all. Jones and Wigley, however, weren’t specific about what was done to which station in order to produce their record, which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/– 0.2°C in the 20th century.

Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/–” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to “try and find something wrong.” The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.

Then the story changed. In June 2009, Georgia Tech’s Peter Webster told Canadian researcher Stephen McIntyre that he had requested raw data, and Jones freely gave it to him. So McIntyre promptly filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the same data. Despite having been invited by the National Academy of Sciences to present his analyses of millennial temperatures, McIntyre was told that he couldn’t have the data because he wasn’t an “academic.” So his colleague Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, asked for the data. He was turned down, too.
There's more to Patrick Michaels article. Read how the dog ate global warming here.

 Can we really believe that the scientific community will step up and critically and honestly admit to the world what has been happening in this scam to grab trillions of dollars of the world's wealth, most of it coming from the U.S. I doubt it. The Democrat socialists have placed all of their credibility in the domination of the climate change argument, which they say is already settled science. Well, ClimateGate and Phil Jones' own words, shows it is not so settled - not so scientific...not so credible.

Related and Background:
Ocean Rise; Sea Levels Rise Never Began: Scientists Withdraw Claims of Sea Levels Rising

ClimateGate Phil Jones: No Global Warming Since 1995 Says Jones

ClimateGate 2008: Media Assisted Polar Bear Hysteria: Polar Bears Vanishing? Uh, no. And the Senate Knows it

Hottest Decade in History? Maybe Not - Earth-Based Climate Stations Manipulated

*****Phil Jones Hides Data from 42 Weather Stations

Inhofe Family Igloo Mocks Al Gore's Global Warming

Paul Dennis ClimateGate EMail Leaker? Were the Emails really hacked?

IPCC ClimateGate Grow: Counterfeit Claims about Netherlands 

ABC Questions Climate Forecasts: Can Climate Science be Trusted?

ClimateGate: Global Warming Bullies 

ClimateGate Scientist Phil Jones Not Prosecuted: UAE Asks for Jones Resignation  

Murari Lal Glacier Scientist: Unverified Data Used for Political Pressure

Copenhagen Junket Cost Millions - Millions for Failure: Inhofe on Copenhagen Caviar

Copenhagen Hopenhagen Nopenhagen? Rajendra Pachauri Apocalypse Now

EPA Endangerment Finding: Obama's Carbon Dioxide Pollutant: Obama TopDown Control

Andrew Watson Marc Morano: Andrew Watson Calls Marc Morano A-Hole

Chris Horner Sues NASA? NASA Hidden Data: ClimateGate NASA FOIA
Network Media Silent on ClimateGate: Day 14 and Counting

Hide the Decline Graph: ClimateGate Hide the Decline "Trick": Jones and Mann Hide the Decline

Rajendra Pachauri Dismisses Top Warming Scientists: Jim Inhofe ClimateGate Investigation

ClimateGate Phil Jones Steps Down

Philip Jones ClimateGate: Phil Jones Global Chief Liar and Cheat 

CRU Souce Code Decoded: Marc Sheppard Finds the Fudge Factor 

ClimateGate: Global Warming Bullies 

ClimateGate Phil Jones Steps Aside: CRU Climategate Chief Steps Down

Jim Inhofe ClimateGate Investigation: Rajendra Pachauri Dismisses Top Warming Scientists

Scientists may sue Gore over "Warming and Change" Fraud

Jaws Dropped as Solar Scientist, Archibald, Praised C02

EPA Silences, Suppresses Opposition: EPA Lies

The EU's Carbon Trade: A Scheme and a Failure

The Fight for Human-made Global Warming

Important Resources:

Climate Depot

Watts Up With That?

Climate Audit, stephen McIntyre

A list of prominent scientists who have reversed their opinions

©2007-2012copyrightMaggie M. Thornton