From his web page: Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process
by Eduardo Zorita, Scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research, specialist in Paleoclimatology, Review Editor of Climate Research and IPCC co-author.
Short answer: because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.
A longer answer: My voice is not very important. I belong to the climate-research infantry, publishing a few papers per year, reviewing a few manuscript per year and participating in a few research projects. I do not form part of important committees, nor I pursue a public awareness of my activities. My very minor task in the public arena was to participate as a contributing author in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.
By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication. My area of research happens to be the climate of the past millennia, where I think I am appreciated by other climate-research ‘soldiers’. And it happens that some of my mail exchange with Keith Briffa and Timothy Osborn can be found in the CRU-files made public recently on the internet.
To the question of legality or ethicalness of reading those files I will write a couple of words later.
I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files. They depict a realistic, I would say even harmless, picture of what the real research in the area of the climate of the past millennium has been in the last years. The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.
These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of. But I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere -and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations,even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the ‘politically correct picture’. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the ‘pleasure’ to experience all this in my area of research.
I thank explicitely Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn for their work in the formulation of one Chapter of the IPCC report. As it destills from these emails, they withstood the evident pressure of other IPCC authors, not experts in this area of research, to convey a distorted picture of our knowledge of the hockey-stick graph.
Is legal or ethical to read the CRU files? I am not a lawyer. It seems that if the files had been hacked this would constitute an illegal act. If they have been leaked it could be a whistle blower action protected by law. I think it is not unethical to read them. Once published, I feel myself entitled to read how some researchers tried to influence reviewers to scupper the publication of our work on the ‘hockey stick graph’ or to read how some IPCC authors tried to exclude this work from the IPCC Report on very dubious reasons. Also, these mails do not contain any personal information at all. They are an account of many dull daily activities of typical climatologists, together with a realistic account of very troubling professional behavior.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Interesting to see several AGW proponents repositioning themselves outside of the team as voices of reason yet still believing in man made warming. There will be important positions to fill in the near future i.e. head of HCRU amongst many others. The leaders may change but will the methods?
Roger Carr (23:34:33) :
It could also be very annoying, Richard. It seems to me quite reasonable that Google would make this move to unlink the pairing in the interests of all searching climate as surely many will be looking for this subject alone without gates or fences.
Perhaps the old never put down to conspiracy…. adage applies here.
Good point Roger. I got a little hot under the collar and now after a good nights sleep I see that understatements are generally best.
Wrong. Bad line and not applicable here. I meant that we should consider it is unlikely a conspiracy, but more a move for maximum spread in searching.
I agree that we should never jump to conclude a “conspiracy” but in this case it is not much of a jump since Google has censorship code in place. With just a few keystrokes they can eliminate keywords from their autocomplete suggestion list and they have a strong motivation to do it so it seems more likely than merely looking to maximize a search spread.
Thanks for your comments.
I just switched my configuration so bing is my preferred search engine. I have been uncomfortable with some of Google’s positions for some time, and I see no reason to support their advertisement revenue stream by using them, if they are going to actively manipulate search results to serve a political agenda, instead of being an honest broker of information.
Larry
Ref: Dennis Wingo (21:29:34) post:Words from President Eisenhower on the CRU Scandal
The point Dennis (and Eisenhower) makes is bigger than GW. It has to do with the corruption of science via government. And vice versa The specific case is: perhaps government funds GW science as long as GW provides info supporting the expansion of government. And perhaps many GW researchers understand that and accommodate the government agenda in return for funding.
For some reason this bigger issue never gets traction.
Mike H. and Bill Illis,
My statement in my earlier post, represents my understanding of our current state. I am not an expert in paleoclimatology. My background is engineering, law and public policy. Research in climate and related fields, both current and paleo, is a hobby I adopted a half dozen years ago. I’m glad Bill is finalizing his post related to this topic. We will all learn together. Its time to revisit these issues of paleoclimate changes that we can expect to repeat. My personal concern is that we (or our children) will physically revisit these issues before we are ready to deal with them. Especially since we are focusing, as a globe, on the opposite.
So Bill, we look forward to your posting.
Thank you
In January 2008 Eli Rabett answered to Morano (see , http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/01/list-for-morano-like-john-hersey-eli.html).
He compiled a list of what Rabett named as “true scientists” (versus the Morano’ list)-Mr. Zorita was in that list as a true scientist. I wonder if after Zorita statement about Jones, Mann, etc, the “true scientist” Zorita will be downgraded by Rabett to “mccarthy” Zorita. Curiously Von Storch, a close colleague from Zorita, was not in the Rabett list.
best
REPLY: Anything from that boorish troll is worthless. Science of repute is not conducted by people that hide behind cute names. – Anthony
A new asset class is being created. One that can be traded like gold or coal.
The one glaring lie in the whole account is that they were unable to respond to FOI requests because to do so would have slowed down their research efforts.
That is a first class flat out lie. They could have had a team of “under” scientists who could keep up with the research findings and attend to FOI requests without delaying research.
They have told a stupid, pointless, thoughtless lie. There must be a reason to do so and lies are told to cover and patch up previous lies.
This AGW research is just a cover for a big slug of snake oil. If those in Copenhagen vote for a worldwide cap and trade or sequestration of carbon we are all in deep doo doo because the barons and politicians who stand to benefit hugely will take that money from us. These “movers and shakers” will reward their good scientists and media friends and themselves of course, all at our expense.
There is absolutely no way of knowing if CO2 is the root of all our evils but we are being railroaded into something very costly and with no known efficacy. The research hasn’t been done as the emails blatantly show.
What will stop Copenhagen doing the wrong thing?
Regarding the ethics of reading the CRU emails, I liken the situation to the discovery of smoke emerging from the roof of a public building from whence the alarm is heard. It is far more important and urgent to avert the impending disaster than it is to question who tripped the alarm and why.
The UN conspirators will close ranks and protect the Jones-Wigley-Mann gang from any negative publicity: click
Academic and scientific integrity requires that any paper that was based in whole or part on the work of these conspirators be withdrawn pending full review.