Leading UK Climate Scientists Must Explain or Resign
Posted by jennifer, September 30th, 2009 - under News, Opinion.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
MOST scientific sceptics have been dismissive of the various reconstructions of temperature which suggest 1998 is the warmest year of the past millennium. Our case has been significantly bolstered over the last week with statistician Steve McIntyre finally getting access to data used by Keith Briffa, Tim Osborn and Phil Jones to support the idea that there has been an unprecedented upswing in temperatures over the last hundred years – the infamous hockey stick graph.
Mr McIntyre’s analysis of the data – which he had been asking for since 2003 – suggests that scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the Hadley Centre associated with the UK Met. Office have been using only a small subset of the available data to make their claims that recent years have been the hottest of the last millennium. When the entire data set is used, Mr McIntyre claims that the hockey stick shape disappears completely. [1]
Mr McIntyre has previously showed problems with the mathematics behind the ‘hockey stick’. But scientists at the Climate Research Centre (CRU), in particular Dr Briffa, have continuously republished claiming the upswing in temperatures over the last 100 years is real and not an artifact of the methodology used – as claimed by Mr McIntyre. However, these same scientists have denied Mr McIntyre access to all the data. Recently they were forced to make more data available to Mr McIntyre after they published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society - a journal which unlike Nature and Science has strict policies on data archiving which it enforces.
This week’s claims by Steve McInyre that scientists associated with the UK Met. Office have been less than diligent are serious and suggest some of the most defended building blocks of the case for anthropogenic global warming are based on the indefensible when the methodology is laid bare.
This sorry saga also raises issues associated with how data is archived at the UK Met. Office with incomplete data sets that spuriously support the case for global warming being promoted while complete data sets are kept hidden from the public – including from scientific sceptics like Steve McIntyre.
It is indeed time leading scientists at the Climate Research Centre associated with the UK Met. Office explain how Mr McIntyre is in error or resign.
***********
Notes and Links
[1] Yamal: A “Divergence” Problem, by Steve McIntyre, 27 September 2009
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168
The above chart shows the difference when the entire data set (black line) as opposed to a subset (red line) is used to reconstruct temperature. The chart is accompanied by the following comment from Mr McIntyre: “The next graphic compares the RCS chronologies from the two slightly different data sets: red – the RCS chronology calculated from the CRU archive (with the 12 picked cores); black – the RCS chronology calculated using the Schweingruber Yamal sample of living trees instead of the 12 picked trees used in the CRU archive [leaving the rest of the data set unchanged i.e. all the subfossil data prior to the 19th century]. The difference is breathtaking.”
Mann, Michael E.; Bradley, Raymond S.; Hughes, Malcolm K. (1998), “Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries” (PDF), Nature 392: 779–787, doi:10.1038/33859, http://www.caenvirothon.com/Resources/Mann,%20et%20al.%20Global%20scale%20temp%20patterns.pdf
Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#cite_note-17
CRU Refuses Data Once Again
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6623
http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/09/the-hockey-stick-is-dead/
Advertisement
253 Responses to “Leading UK Climate Scientists Must Explain or Resign”
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] Show All
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] Show All
filing this here:
Mr. Jones has some explaining to do. Check out http://www.ClimateDepot.com for latest.
Caught in Another Untruth? THEN: UN IPCC’s Phil Jones, Dec 3, 2008: ‘About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything at all’ –
NOW: UN IPCC’s Phil Jones, Nov 24, 2009: ‘We’ve not deleted any emails or data here at CRU’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230635/Scientist-climate-change-cover-storm-told-quit.html
Scientist in climate change ‘cover-up’ storm told to quit
By David Derbyshire
Last updated at 9:45 PM on 24th November 2009
The scientist at the heart of the climate change scandal was under growing pressure to quit last night.
George Monbiot, a leading environmentalist, said Phil Jones should resign from the Climatic Research Unit over leaked emails that appear to show researchers suppressed scientific data.
More emails came to light yesterday, including one in which an American climatologist admitted it was a travesty that scientists could not explain a lack of global warming in recent years.
In another note, UK researchers dismissed the work of scientists challenging global warming as ‘crap’.
Another appeared to call for pressure on the BBC after a reporter suggested that evidence for rising temperatures since 2001 was thin.
In one of the most damning messages, Professor Jones appeared to respond to the death of a climate sceptic with the words ‘in an odd way this is cheering news!’.
The leak has been a huge embarrassment to the climate unit at the University of East Anglia, which is a global leader in its field.
Although there is no hint of evidence that climate change is not real, the emails appear to show researchers manipulating raw data and discussing how to dodge Freedom of Information requests.
Yesterday, Mr Monbiot, who writes on green issues, said the emails could scarcely be more damaging.
More…
• ‘I won’t let the b*****s out until they’ve done a deal’: Climate change envoy John Prescott reveals unusual approach to solving global warming
• Global warming could lead to increased flooding and rising food prices in UK, claim leading scientists
‘I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken,’ he said. ‘There are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad.
‘There appears to be evidence of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a Freedom of Information request.
‘Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
‘The head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.’
Bob Ward, a climate expert at the London School of Economics and Political Science, demanded an independent inquiry.
‘From what I’ve seen of the emails, there’s not been any new questions raised about the way papers have been put together, but there should be an re-examination of the emails,’ he said.
The emails – which appeared last week on a Russian website – appear to have been stolen from a university computer server.
Enlarge
Yesterday, Professor Jones refused to quit and denied that researchers had altered evidence to bolster the case for man-made climate change.
He added: ‘We absolutely stand by the science we produce here at the University of East Anglia and it has been peer reviewed and published.
‘Some of the emails probably had poorly chosen words and were sent in the heat of the moment, when I was frustrated. I do regret sending some of them. We’ve not deleted any emails or data here at CRU.
‘I would never manipulate the data one bit – I would categorically deny that.’ The university is to conduct an independent review of data security and on its response to 60 freedom of information requests over a short period.
˜ At least half the 36 UK officials and ministers travelling to the climate change talks in Copenhagen are going by air rather than by rail.
The Liberal Democrats said the arrangements showed up Labour’s hypocrisy on green issues.
The Government said officials had meetings that limited their travel options next month.
[...] Some excerpts from the postings Boehmer-Christiansen had included in full. The first was from an Australian biologist, Dr. Jennifer Marohasy, who had concluded: Leading UK Climate Scientists Must Explain or Resign [...]
I watched your performance on Q and and was appalled by your boorish behaviour. I understand that you are sceptical of those who support climate change but there is no need for the rude and unseemly way in which you interrupted other speakers when contradicting your viewpoints.
I would be much more accepting of your arguments if you could stick to a reasoned and well structured presentation of the facts rather than attacking those who dare to offer an opposing point of view.