Poor Moonbat. Still in denial that skeptics do solid science, they are not deniers funded by Big
Fossils.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...risis-response

Pretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away
Climate sceptics have lied, obscured and cheated for years. That's why we climate rationalists must
uphold the highest standards of science

[image] Research and rationalism: ice core drilling on the summit of Quelccaya ice cap, Peru.
Photograph: Peter Essick/Getty

I have seldom felt so alone. Confronted with crisis, most of the environmentalists I know have gone
into denial. The emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East
Anglia, they say, are a storm in a tea cup, no big deal, exaggerated out of all recognition. It is
true that climate change deniers have made wild claims which the material can't possibly support
(the end of global warming, the death of climate science). But it is also true that the emails are
very damaging.


The response of the greens and most of the scientists I know is profoundly ironic, as we spend so
much of our time confronting other people's denial. Pretending that this isn't a real crisis isn't
going to make it go away. Nor is an attempt to justify the emails with technicalities. We'll be
able to get past this only by grasping reality, apologising where appropriate and demonstrating
that it cannot happen again.


It is true that much of what has been revealed could be explained as the usual cut and thrust of
the peer review process, exacerbated by the extraordinary pressure the scientists were facing from
a denial industry determined to crush them. One of the most damaging emails was sent by the head of
the climatic research unit, Phil Jones. He wrote "I can't see either of these papers being in the
next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the
peer-review literature is!"


One of these papers which was published in the journal Climate Research turned out to be so badly
flawed that the scandal resulted in the resignation of the editor-in-chief. Jones knew that any
incorrect papers by sceptical scientists would be picked up and amplified by climate change deniers
funded by the fossil fuel industry, who often - as I documented in my book Heat - use all sorts of
dirty tricks to advance their cause.


Even so, his message looks awful. It gives the impression of confirming a potent meme circulated by
those who campaign against taking action on climate change: that the IPCC process is biased.
However good the detailed explanations may be, most people aren't going to follow or understand
them. Jones's statement, on the other hand, is stark and easy to grasp.



In this case you could argue that technically he has done nothing wrong. But a fat lot of good that
will do. Think of the MPs' expenses scandal: complaints about stolen data, denials and huffy
responses achieved nothing at all. Most of the MPs could demonstrate that technically they were
innocent: their expenses had been approved by the Commons office. It didn't change public
perceptions one jot. The only responses that have helped to restore public trust in Parliament are
humility, openness and promises of reform.


When it comes to his handling of Freedom of Information requests, Professor Jones might struggle
even to use a technical defence. If you take the wording literally, in one case he appears to be
suggesting that emails subject to a request be deleted, which means that he seems to be advocating
potentially criminal activity. Even if no other message had been hacked, this would be sufficient
to ensure his resignation as head of the unit.


I feel desperately sorry for him: he must be walking through hell. But there is no helping it; he
has to go, and the longer he leaves it, the worse it will get. He has a few days left in which to
make an honourable exit. Otherwise, like the former Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael
Martin, he will linger on until his remaining credibility vanishes, inflicting continuing damage to
climate science.


Some people say that I am romanticising science, that it is never as open and honest as the
Popperian ideal. Perhaps. But I know that opaqueness and secrecy are the enemies of science. There
is a word for the apparent repeated attempts to prevent disclosure revealed in these emails:
unscientific.


The crisis has been exacerbated by the university's handling of it, which has been a total
trainwreck: a textbook example of how not to respond. RealClimate reports that "We were made aware
of the existence of this archive last Tuesday morning when the hackers attempted to upload it to
RealClimate, and we notified CRU of their possible security breach later that day." In other words,
the university knew what was coming three days before the story broke. As far as I can tell, it sat
like a rabbit in the headlights, waiting for disaster to strike.


When the emails hit the news on Friday morning, the university appeared completely unprepared.
There was no statement, no position, no one to interview. Reporters kept being fobbed off while
CRU's opponents landed blow upon blow on it. When a journalist I know finally managed to track down
Phil Jones, he snapped "no comment" and put down the phone. This response is generally taken by the
media to mean "guilty as charged". When I got hold of him on Saturday, his answer was to send me a
pdf called "WMO statement on the status of the global climate in 1999". Had I a couple of hours to
spare I might have been able to work out what the heck this had to do with the current crisis, but
he offered no explanation.

By then he should have been touring the TV studios for the past 36 hours, confronting his critics,
making his case and apologising for his mistakes. Instead, he had disappeared off the face of the
Earth. Now, far too late, he has given an interview to the Press Association, which has done
nothing to change the story.


The handling of this crisis suggests that nothing has been learnt by climate scientists in this
country from 20 years of assaults on their discipline. They appear to have no idea what they're up
against or how to confront it. Their opponents might be scumbags, but their media strategy is
exemplary.


The greatest tragedy here is that despite many years of outright fabrication, fraud and deceit on
the part of the climate change denial industry, documented in James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore's
brilliant new book Climate Cover-up, it is now the climate scientists who look bad. By comparison
to his opponents, Phil Jones is pure as the driven snow. Hoggan and Littlemore have shown how
fossil fuel industries have employed "experts" to lie, cheat and manipulate on their behalf. The
revelations in their book (as well as in Heat and in Ross Gelbspan's book The Heat Is On) are 100
times graver than anything contained in these emails.


But the deniers' campaign of lies, grotesque as it is, does not justify secrecy and suppression on
the part of climate scientists. Far from it: it means that they must distinguish themselves from
their opponents in every way. No one has been as badly let down by the revelations in these emails
as those of us who have championed the science. We should be the first to demand that it is
unimpeachable, not the last.

monbiot.com

Eric Gisin wrote:
Poor Moonbat. Still in denial that skeptics do solid science, they
are not deniers funded by Big Fossils.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...risis-response

Pretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away
Climate sceptics have lied, obscured and cheated for years. That's
why we climate rationalists must uphold the highest standards of
science
[image] Research and rationalism: ice core drilling on the summit of
Quelccaya ice cap, Peru. Photograph: Peter Essick/Getty

I have seldom felt so alone. Confronted with crisis, most of the
environmentalists I know have gone into denial. The emails hacked
from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East
Anglia, they say, are a storm in a tea cup, no big deal, exaggerated
out of all recognition. It is true that climate change deniers have
made wild claims which the material can't possibly support (the end
of global warming, the death of climate science). But it is also true
that the emails are very damaging.

Poor Monbiot doesn't seem to be able to make his case.

Day 5 - still no fraud found - except that from denialists. lol

On Nov 25, 9:33*pm, "Ouroboros Rex" wrote:
Eric Gisin wrote:
Poor Moonbat. Still in denial that skeptics do solid science, they
are not deniers funded by Big Fossils.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...9/nov/25/monbi...

Pretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away
Climate sceptics have lied, obscured and cheated for years. That's
why we climate rationalists must uphold the highest standards of
science
[image] Research and rationalism: ice core drilling on the summit of
Quelccaya ice cap, Peru. Photograph: Peter Essick/Getty

I have seldom felt so alone. Confronted with crisis, most of the
environmentalists I know have gone into denial. The emails hacked
from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East
Anglia, they say, are a storm in a tea cup, no big deal, exaggerated
out of all recognition. It is true that climate change deniers have
made wild claims which the material can't possibly support (the end
of global warming, the death of climate science). But it is also true
that the emails are very damaging.

* Poor Monbiot doesn't seem to be able to make his case.

* Day 5 - still no fraud found - except that from denialists. *lol

What about the destruction of files which prevents
the historical temps being checked.
Those files belong to Jones' employer

chemist wrote:
On Nov 25, 9:33 pm, "Ouroboros Rex" wrote:
Eric Gisin wrote:
Poor Moonbat. Still in denial that skeptics do solid science, they
are not deniers funded by Big Fossils.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...9/nov/25/monbi...
Pretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away
Climate sceptics have lied, obscured and cheated for years. That's
why we climate rationalists must uphold the highest standards of
science
[image] Research and rationalism: ice core drilling on the summit of
Quelccaya ice cap, Peru. Photograph: Peter Essick/Getty
I have seldom felt so alone. Confronted with crisis, most of the
environmentalists I know have gone into denial. The emails hacked
from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East
Anglia, they say, are a storm in a tea cup, no big deal, exaggerated
out of all recognition. It is true that climate change deniers have
made wild claims which the material can't possibly support (the end
of global warming, the death of climate science). But it is also true
that the emails are very damaging.
Poor Monbiot doesn't seem to be able to make his case.

Day 5 - still no fraud found - except that from denialists. lol

What about the destruction of files which prevents
the historical temps being checked.
Those files belong to Jones' employer

That is what we call a bug fix, a feature to enhance things.

Q

--
Well, opinions are like assholes... everybody has one. -- Harry Callahan
http://tinyurl.com/m7m3qd