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.
The man acknowledges that as a journalist he should have investigated the CRU claims before swallowing them, hook-line-and-sinker, but then proceeds to vow confidence in the wider body of AGW work which he also has not investigated.
I don’t think this boy has learned a thing from this experience. He simply threw Jones under the bus and resumed “business as usual”.
CH
New headline at the top of the page at Drudge :
“Call for Congressional investigation into ClimateGate…”
http://www.drudgereport.com/
Whether you like, dislike, or are neutral about Drudge doesn’t matter, IMO. Drudge gets more than 20 million hits every day. We should all be happy about the exposure Drudge gives this story. Even Monbiot should be happy since he is calling for a deeper look in to things!
BTW I’m in the neutral camp.
The hacking of CRU and general AGW is being discussed on Londons premier radio phone-in, LBC 97.3 at this moment (7.25am). This is as close to main stream I’ve heard.
also in right column at Drudge :
Climate scientists accused of ‘manipulating data’…
at link
Lord Lawson calls for public inquiry into UEA global warming data ‘manipulation’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6634282/Lord-Lawson-calls-for-public-inquiry-into-UEA-global-warming-data-manipulation.html
Throw a party Monbiot, you’re getting your wish!!
I pretty much nearly fell off my chair when I read this – all credit to George Monbiot that takes guts.
rbateman (21:27:23) :
Now, don’t forget that Dr. James Hansen is also in on a lot of those emails.
It’s dead Jim, and so is your credibility.
There is only one email from Hansen in the archive
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=110&filename=926087421.txt
I suspect tht privately, Jim doesn’t set too much store by treemometers, and didn’t involve himself with the Cru crew much.
On the one hand they impose a nanny state for the 1 in 10,000 chance a child bumps their head too hard while riding their bicycle et al, in the name of protecting the children, as opposed to allowing us to teach our children responsibility. On the other hand they scare the hell out of our children giving them nightmares of climate catastrophe. These are sick twisted people we are dealing with. They need to be taught a lesson they will never forget.
And yet in Oz our dear Leader KRudd is still insistent on passing his “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” by the end of this week…. My heart sinks.
A new policy at CRU – all email accounts closed & replaced by whiteboards.
tallbloke (23:28:11) :
He’s copied on way too much, which means he is Incriminated by his silence.
Published on Tuesday, November 3, 2009 by The Guardian/UK
“Climate Change Deniers Are Not Skeptics – They’re Suckers”
… “These people aren’t sceptics; they’re suckers.”….
“Almost all my fiercest arguments over climate change, both in print and in person, have been with people in their 60s or 70s. Why might this be?”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/02/climate-change-denial-clive-james
Maybe they remember the warming scare then the cooling scare and now the warming scare. Maybe they also remember many, many “The end is nigh” stories.
Jimbo
He admits the CRU issue is a major blow but not a final nail in the coffin.
He goes on to indicate how powerful any such final nail would need to be with his sarcastic invented email.
To limit damage from the powerful blow he is proposing some limited concessions including the removal of Phil Jones, the disciplining of 3 or 4 others and the re examination of some code.
He leaves it entirely open as to what further evidence might come to light and has positioned himself as a ‘reasonable guy’ in the meantime.
Unfortunately he has rather compromised his purpose with the silly fake email section.
In reality it needs nothing as outlandish as that to provide the final nail.
Just a lack of confidence on the part of the general public is quite sufficient and that may well have been present even before the CRU revelations.
Don’t laugh at that. I have seen companies in Silicon Valley where all the walls are covered with whiteboards. If you meet someone in a hallway and start a conversation, there is a whiteboard right next to you.
Don’t laugh too hard because the laugh is on us. He is taking the mickey that’s all. His life revolves around AGW being true and if he actually ever got to any belief at all in what he has said there he would have ended it all. Don’t worry, he is still the same eco-loonie Moonbat. I believe that it’s really shaken him though and it may be some time before he is back to his obnoxious self.
I’m very surprised at the number of comments here which seem to misunderstand Monbiot’s writing. What’s up with that?
Guys, wake up! read moonbat again… he thinks he is quite cute and also thinks the ‘science is ok’ – nothing but bs from down under…
Remember the solar minimum is still in full swing for over 2 years now and the planet is continuing to cool. Please keep injecting the science into the conversation when discussing the issue.
The first part said this is a serious matter – not just a few ill-considered emails, as other defenders have said – the second part is for the moonbats that might continue to be followers.
On balance, a win for skeptics but more to do.
OK some credit due to the Moonbat. But I struggle to take anything printed by the Grauniad very seriously and, after his disgraceful ‘journalism’ over many years, I wouldn’t be all that impressed if Monbiot’s admission (without the smart arsed fake email) was written in a suicide note, discovered ex post facto.
But, to look on the bright side, this is a great thing to paste into emails to all those AGW True Believer contacts who rubbish everything you send them along the lines that “Well what do you expect from Christopher Brooker” or “Delingpole? – I’m disappointed in you” or “Plimer? – well he’s just an Ozzie Geologist. What would he know?”
Over at realclimate (perhaps to be re-titled realconspiracy) DavidCOG has suggested to all the pro-AGW posters there that they counter sceptics on forums who keep referring to Climategate with this…
“So? How does that refute any of the *science*?”
Genius, or what? I mean, that’s stumped me!
Whats central here is not whether the CRU emails destroy/don’t destroy the case for AGW, but the issue of intellectual dishonesty in science. Scientists clearly need to be reminded the the end does not justify the means. Even if the end is as important as ‘saving the world’, that does not justify faking the data. I was amazed that Michael Mann held on to a job in academia, after his work was destroyed by M&M, Wegman etc etc: in that case, again, the charge was essentially intellectual dishonesty, proclaiming a conclusion that the data was not truly able to support – inadequate data/data used inadequately/uncritical ‘buddy’ peer review, were the main findings by Wegman. Much the same is going on at CRU. If Jones is not dismissed (or invited to step down) I shall be astonished. If he holds on to his position, the notion of scientists as experts in any field will be devalued to the point of ridicule.,
An interesting opinion piece from the WSJ Europe about the UEA e-mails et al – seems fairly balanced and calls for further investigation:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html
…And DavidCOG is already using it apparently! http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/cru-hack-time-to-hit-back-hard/
OT, but I heard on the radio on the way home tonight that an Aussie lad who’d setup a facebook page ‘coz he was pissed off with the local “Bobby” is being charged under laws governing inflammatory remarks (These laws in Australia at least, apply to people making comments on sites like facebook, but e-mail and blogs too. Also the host of the website can be held responsible too. Scary sheet).
I guess we now have to be careful who we call an idiot.
There’s one glaring conclusion to be drawn from the conversation going on here: many of you lack the faculties to correctly distinguish between truth and falsehood. Anyone managing to read Monbiot’s piece and not pick up on the blatant sarcasm has a deficiency in their understanding of reading, logic and humour.
Many equivalent examples can be found among the comments generated on your side of this argument. Like the failure to recognize that FOX NEWS is in part a propaganda tool for corporate interests, and that its populist rhetoric is a tool to attract gullible people (yeah, that’s you guys). Some here even picked up on that but, incredibly enough, failed to make the mental connection that the “skeptic” side is largely fuelled by the same corporate interest. One guy talked about being fooled by Nixon back in the days, but that he now – by golly – was 100% on the right side of things, guaranteed!
It’s quite clear that you, deep down, are aware of your deficiency in this regard, but that you have jujitsu’d it into an almost religious fervor against what you have wrongfully identified will hurt you. And while I’m sure that once in a while you’re correct about one thing or the other, does it not give you the slightest pause when you detect the abundance of faulty reasoning and sloppy analysis coming from your side? It should. Your analysis of the leaked letters has been as laughably bad as your misreading of Monbiot. And you could stand to learn to see that.