From Andrew Bolt, my “mate” down under at the Herald Sun, comes this surprise. I’ll have to say, it is to George Monbiot’s credit to do this. I embrace his first statement, because it succinctly sums up the situation:
It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging(1). I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.
– George Monbiot on his personal blog
George seems to realize that, “it’s worse than we thought”.
From Andrew Bolt:
Even George Monbiot, one of the fiercest media propagandists of the warming faith, admits he should have been more sceptical and says the science now needs to be rechecked:
It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.
Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here 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. 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.
Sure, Monbiot claims the fudging of what he extremely optimistically puts as just “three or four” scientists doesn’t knock over the whole global warming edifice, yet…
If even Monbiot, an extremist, can say that much, why cannot the Liberals say far more? And will now the legion of warmist journalists in our own media dare say as Monbiot has so belatedly:
I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.
Scepticism is the essential disposition of our craft, yet too many journalists have abandoned it. Remember: the opposite of sceptical is gullible.
UPDATE: Here’s the screencap from Monbiot’s blog on the Guardian:
Click to see the original.
Sponsored IT training links:
If want to get quick success in HP0-S27 exam then join our online training. Get certified 642-524 material including 640-553 demo for practice and pass real test on first try.
Me thinks Monbiot is minding his ars. I have heard of these kinds of apologies. One hole says one thing, the other says something else. The apology is genuine but the sphincter had to be tightened to say it. He is likely caught between a rock and a hard place. So he apologized to the rock while protecting his ars.
While I appreciate that one of the most strident AGW advocates has admitted that he was wrong based on overwhelming evidence, I’m not ready to play make up with these guys yet. After years of them advocating for the use of my tax dollars on a bogus scam all the while calling me a denier or a flat earth moron I’m more than happy to let them stew in the mess they created for themselves for a while.
If he wants to apologize for being a bad journalist he’s welcome to. But that is more an apology to himself than to me.
I’ll hold off on the kudos until I get my apology. A refund would be nice, too.
Monbiot: Phil Jones, “should now resign.”
Help me here. Aren’t most emails sent to someone else?
Arrrgg! No!
This guy is making fun of the whole thing. He still thinks it’s some kind of made up conspiracy. The letter to the Knights of Carbonic is thumbing his nose at us. He thinks that’s how we see all this, as some kind of demonic conspiracy.
Yes, he is mocking us.
It wasn’t an apology at all people. Nor was he admitting to any kind of global warming ‘scam’.
He’s ‘flipping us the finger’ with a huge dose of sarcasm behind it.
Reread his blog, it’s all too obvious.
RT (Russian Television on satellite) in English has for the last 24 hours using the hacked emails as its lead story lasting approx 5 minutes saying that the British police have ask there Russian counter parts for help over the hacking. The reporter does a good job in enlightening the viewers as to the costs involved to the world and how much the ‘science’ is distorted.
Monbiot made a nominal apology. So, what? Don’t be deceived. He still believes in AGW as much as ever, he only paused to throw a few former inconvenient friends under the bus. Expect his propaganda to continue, as ever.
His words say it all: But do these revelations justify the sceptics’ claims that this is “the final nail in the coffin” of global warming theory? Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence.
Important: cloud project (climate and solar) has begun:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/16/cern_cloud_experiment/
Well… I am shocked by this turn of events. By the same token as a skeptic all I have ever wanted was for journalists to actually try to be a little skeptical about the story lines they were being fed. Look unfortunately if you only feed people that global warming is man-made a lot of them are not going to take the time to find out if it is or not, they are simply going to accept it as being man caused. This is unfortunate but many people do not feel like they have the time to get into the complexities of the science. That is why we are supposed to have journalists that do not simply take what people say and parrot it. However it is not simply climate change that they do this in. Many stories about health, dieting, and other scientific endevours are gleefully bandied about without ever trying to find a dissenting view. Seriously if it wasn’t for sensational Journalism may of the stupid ideas people create for themselves in the name of science would not exist.
I applaud Monboit for his honesty. I hope his ability to be skeptical, whether the science is pro AGW or against AGW. Even as skeptics I have seen people grab onto alternative explanations for the increase in global temperatures much too readily. Science is best left to a questioning mind and is only proved when every question asked arrives at the same conclusion because that is simply all that the data says.
The reactions of various people are somewhat surprising and couldn’t be expected.
Who could have thought that Monbiot and Juliet Eilpeirin will be essentially shocked by the news?
And on the other hand, there are others who may have looked more moderate and who are still saying that things are rosy.
The difference between these two groups probably arise from their different expectations and, therefore, different moral standards. Those who say that everything is fine probably agree with the mafia methods of Jones et al., so they expected them and they are not surprised.
I don’t really want to say that Monbiot is more ethical in this sense, but I do want to suggest it. 😉
The very first post on this site says that “I hope that the clamor continues to grow.” Well I can assure you that it will take a tremendous grassroots effort of most on this site. Why? Well for example, did anyone catch NY Times/author Tom Friedman on Charlie Rose last night? He kept saying that we were causing the extinction of the polar bears. Said it numerous times. And Rose? He sat there agreeing, and supporting cap and trade and Obama to stop this mythical tragedy.
Bill Illis (04:47:18) :
I think this is also about throwing Phil Jones under the bus
I agree.
One thing Monbiot can’t sweep under the carpet though is that all the names involved in the emails are the centerpiece scientists of manmade global warming. The general population doesn’t know that yet. Maybe the general population never will know it. That may be what Monbiot and all others on his side may be hoping for; that Jones and Mann will be made to look like over-eager researchers, as you put it, or rogues, that had to be removed from the true science of AGW and AGW marches on.
George, I owe you an apology as well. I see from this you are a good man. I am very sorry about repeatedly twisting your name into an epithet regarding bats and the moon.
To science!
German Newspaper about CERN’s Cloud poject:
http://www.welt.de/die-welt/vermischtes/article5309135/Die-Antwort-weiss-der-Sonnenwind.html
The entire mailing list of the AMS (American Meteorological Society) should be sent the ClimateGate story. That could be part of the “Lesson plans that address how scientists are attributing climate change to anthropogenic causes may help address those concerns”.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/17/ams-tv-weathercaster-survey-on-climate-raises-eyebrows/
Mr Monbiot’s sarcastic tone in the second half of his blogpost again makes me doubt the sincerity of his intention to be more questioning in the future. Don’t the conspirators have ultimate control of all the collected data in the field? – Which they won’t share – which they manipulate? From a statement from Dr Ian Ball(rtd),Wegman noted that 42 persons (including the conspirators) were publishing together and also peer reviewing eachother’s ‘research’. It’s not a conspiracy of a handful but of 42 persons at least from ‘Science’ with their media/political backers,many of whom occupy positions of extreme power .Add in the $Trillions WITH A T that this will be used to soak us for,for decades to come,together with the increase in Government and the resultant loss of freedom and it’s the greatest swindle ever perpetrated in the history of the World.
the three headlines at the top of Drudge this morning :
Climategate: ‘Greatest scandal in modern science’…
Call for Congressional investigation…
Paper: Junk science exposed among climate-change believers…
http://www.drudgereport.com/
Drudge gets more than 20 million hits a day.
Monbiot’s damage control may fall short.
To all of us here, For all of us here.
I am so very proud that even though I rarely had a much to say that was more than an affirmation of what was discussed, or comedic commentary that framed the idiocy of the algorites, I am part of a coven of people who actually thought for themselves.
We here, labeled fringe, radicals, or climate change deniers, are all in fact simply folowing the principles of real science.
To seek the truth.
I would say that each here.. and most notably the esteemed Mr Watts, Lift a glass in cheer.
and watch the house of hockey sticks, and “settled” science, as it comes tumbling down.
Mr Gore, a.k.a The president of the world.. im guessing that you are feeling that million degrees, just under your collar…
How anyone can take this guy seriously as a journalist after this is beyond me.
And some one has to change the title of this post!
Just wanted to say thanks to Anthony and the Mods for all the hard work. Great work guys.
Prior to global warming there was acid rain- the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program report showed that the claims were overblown. However the acid rain legislation still sailed through Congress and passed into law. Importantly, the career of Ed Krug-who dared to present the evidence of acid rain scaremongering- had his career destroyed. Acid rain was built on flawed computer models and personal destruction- facts meant nothing. It was the template for global warming complete with the threats of what would happen to any researcher that dared to reject a green claim.
We now have 20 years following SO2 controls and for most acidic waters there is no real improvement. (Because the problem was natural organic acids, suppression of the natural fire cycle etc.) Believe it or not the failure of acid waters to respond to SO2 controls is now linked in some literature to global warming increasing the release of organic acids!
Be very careful believing that the release of the CRU data will change anything in a meaningful way-some of us have been down this road before. But I still hope.
Maybe I’m missing the point but several people have stressed that the leaking of the CRU’s data was an illegal act.
Can anyone explain why, given the manifest Public Interest defence and the recent judgement on “The Kingsnorth Six” (the Greenpeace group that stormed a UK power station).
Their “defence of ‘lawful excuse’ was accepted by the jury – because they were acting to safeguard property around the world ‘in immediate need of protection’ from the impacts of climate change, caused in part by burning coal” ?
( http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/a-time-comes-more-info )
Geese, ganders and all that. More sauce, anyone?
If Greenpeace supporters can damage a power station with impunity because they have strong feelings about an issue of public importance (and I don’t think it’s an altogether unreasonable defence even if inappropriate in this case), why would it not apply to the leaker/hacker/data forwarder in the CRUTAPE Letters case, esp as there was no risk to life and limb, only to egos.
>>forfismum (04:29:09) :
>>Has anyone managed to read this item at the
>>Telegraph ? i keep geetina page unavailable message
This is obviously a spoof message with spoof links. But tell me, Forfismum, are you having fun or trying to pick up our ISP addresses by using false Telegraph newspaper links.
Please do inform…
.
I didn’t even know this man existed, but why would I pay him any attention since he’s such a poor writer? I’m no great writer myself, but I do enjoy reading. Monbiot’s comments are confusing and undeserving of deep analysis. Great satire should have the punch and clarity of Swift’s “Proposal.” Great hyperbole should have a clear and profound effect such as Christ’s statement that “he that doesn’t hate father or mother is not worthy of me.” Monbiot’s command of language is so poor that it just causes speculation among the readers instead of causing enjoyment, introspection and education, as it should. Read it if you like, but you won’t get much out of it.
It is depressing reading all the stupid “wow good old George apogised” comments on here. Yes he admitted that the emails were genuine, yes he called for the sacking of Prof Jones but the apology?????
That was a joke, a piss take, sarcasm …….. don’t you people do irony????
Maybe you just don’t go to the source and check things out.
Really you just make the warmists look good and the climate realists look, well kind of dumb.
OT important prop by IPCC:
I think this garbage should get some rebuttal!
“Climate Scientists make ‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’
Deutsch | English 24/11/2009 – Climate change is accelerating beyond expectations, urgent emissions reductions required, say leading scientists.
Copenhagen Diagnosis cover. Credit: UNSW Climate Change Research Centre
Joint Media Release by the Authors of The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009
Global ice-sheets are melting at an increased rate; Arctic sea-ice is disappearing much faster than recently projected, and future sea-level rise is now expected to be much higher than previously forecast, according to a new global scientific synthesis prepared by some of the world’s top climate scientists.
In a special report called ‘The Copenhagen Diagnosis’, the 26 researchers, most of whom are authors of published IPCC reports, conclude that several important aspects of climate change are occurring at the high end or even beyond the expectations of only a few years ago.
The report also notes that global warming continues to track early IPCC projections based on greenhouse gas increases. Without significant mitigation, the report says global mean warming could reach as high as 7 degrees Celsius by 2100.
The Copenhagen Diagnosis, which was a year in the making, documents the key findings in climate change science since the publication of the landmark Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report in 2007.
The new evidence to have emerged includes:
Satellite and direct measurements now demonstrate that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass and contributing to sea level rise at an increasing rate.
Arctic sea-ice has melted far beyond the expectations of climate models. For example, the area of summer sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40% greater than the average projection from the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
Sea level has risen more than 5 centimeters over the past 15 years, about 80% higher than IPCC projections from 2001. Accounting for ice-sheets and glaciers, global sea-level rise may exceed 1 meter by 2100, with a rise of up to 2 meters considered an upper limit by this time. This is much higher than previously projected by the IPCC. Furthermore, beyond 2100, sea level rise of several meters must be expected over the next few centuries.
In 2008 carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels were ~40% higher than those in 1990. Even if emissions do not grow beyond today’s levels, within just 20 years the world will have used up the allowable emissions to have a reasonable chance of limiting warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius.
The report concludes that global emissions must peak then decline rapidly within the next five to ten years for the world to have a reasonable chance of avoiding the very worst impacts of climate change.
To stabilize climate, global emissions of carbon dioxide and other long-lived greenhouse gases need to reach near-zero well within this century, the report states.
The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009: Updating the World on Latest Climate Science.
I. Allison, N.L. Bindoff, R.A. Bindschadler, P.M. Cox, N. de Noblet, M.H. England, J.E. Francis, N. Gruber, A.M. Haywood, D.J. Karoly, G. Kaser, C. Le Quéré, T.M. Lenton, M.E. Mann, B.I. McNeil, A.J. Pitman, S. Rahmstorf, E. Rignot, H.J. Schellnhuber, S.H. Schneider, S.C. Sherwood, R.C.J. Somerville, K. Steffen, E.J. Steig, M. Visbeck, A.J. Weaver. University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre (CCRC), Sydney, Australia, 60pp.
The full report is available at http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org
Statements by Authors
“Sea level is rising much faster and Arctic sea ice cover shrinking more rapidly than we previously expected. Unfortunately, the data now show us that we have underestimated the climate crisis in the past.”
Professor Stefan Rahmstorf, Professor of Physics of the Oceans and a Department Head at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.
“Carbon dioxide emissions cannot be allowed to continue to rise if humanity intends to limit the risk of unacceptable climate change. The task is urgent and the turning point must come soon. If we are to avoid more than 2 degrees Celsius warming, which many countries have already accepted as a goal, then emissions need to peak before 2020 and then decline rapidly.”
Professor Richard Somerville, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, USA.
“Our available emissions to ensure a reasonably secure climate future are just about used up. Within just a decade global emissions need to be declining rapidly. An urgent binding treaty is needed to ensure unilateral action among the high emitters.”
Professor Matthew England, ARC Federation Fellow and joint Director of the Climate Change Research Centre of the University of NSW, Australia.
“This is a final scientific call for the climate negotiators from 192 countries who must embark on the climate protection train in Copenhagen. They need to know the stark truth about global warming and the unprecedented risks involved.”
Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and Chair of the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU).
“The adjustment of glaciers to present climate alone is expected to raise sea level by approximately 18 centimeters. Under warming conditions glaciers may contribute as much as more than half a meter by 2100.”
Dr. Georg Kaser, Glaciologist at the University of Innsbruck, Austria
“Warming of the oceans and increased uptake of CO2 is of increasing concern for the marine environment. The loss of biodiversity due to upper ocean warming, ocean acidification and ocean de-oxygenation will add dramatically to the existing threads of overfishing and marine pollution”.
Professor Martin Visbeck, Professor of Physical Oceanography and Deputy Director of IFM-GEOMAR
“The climate system does not provide us with a silver bullet. There is no escape but to start reducing greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible.”
Professor Nicolas Gruber, Professor for Environmental Physics, ETH Zürich
For more information contact:
AUSTRALIA:
Stephen Gray +61 403 802 027 (mobile) or Stephen.Gray@unsw.edu.au
Matthew England +61 425 264 485 (mobile) or M.England@unsw.edu.au
US / CANADA:
Robert Monroe or Mario Aguilera +1 858-534-3624; scrippsnews@ucsd.edu
Richard Somerville +1 619 977 2713 (mobile) or rsomerville@ucsd.edu
Andrew Weaver …. or weaver@uvic.ca
EUROPE:
PIK Press Office +49 331 288 25 07 or press@pik-potsdam.de
IFM-GEOMAR Press Office +49 431 600 28 07 or presse@ifm-geomar.de
Nicolas Gruber, ETH Zürich, +41 44 632 0352 or nicolas.gruber@env.ethz.ch
Simon Dunford +44 (0)1603 592203 (mobile) or S.Dunford@uea.ac.uk